The Humanitarian Hoax of Community Organizing: Killing America With Kindness

/in , , , , /by

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Graphic taken from an Organizing for Action email.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years presenting his crippling community organizing tactics and strategies as altruistic when in fact they were designed for destruction. His legacy, the Leftist Democratic Party and its ongoing “resistance” movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy American democracy from within and replace it with socialism.

Radical socialist Saul Alinsky wrote his 1971 manual Rules for Radicals to instruct future generations of radical community organizers in effective tactics to transform a capitalist state into a socialist state. Obama became the quintessential community organizer.

In May 1966, The Nation published an article written by Alinsky’s contemporaries Columbia sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” described the tactics necessary to destroy capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with unsustainable demands that push society into social chaos and economic collapse. Cloward and Piven took a termite approach to destruction that collapses structures from the inside out. They specifically targeted the U.S. public welfare system to instigate a crisis that would collapse welfare and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income.

David Horowitz explains that Alinsky and his followers deliberately,

“organize their power bases without naming the end game, without declaring a specific future they want to achieve – socialism, communism, or anarchy. Without committing themselves to concrete principles or a specific future they organize exclusively to build a power base which they can use to destroy the existing society and its economic system.”

David Horowitz has identified the humanitarian hoax of community organizing with great precision.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy used poverty as the weapon of destruction that would collapse America and replace the government with their idealized totalitarian Marxist model. They succeeded in bankrupting New York City for a time but there was not enough pressure to destroy the economy of the country. Supplying additional pressure required Barack Obama’s particular skill set.

The Cloward-Piven experiment in New York City revealed the weakness of their strategy. Community organizing provided insufficient economic pressure – success required ideological politicians and a colluding media willing to disinform the public to be successful. 21st century politics has embraced the expanded 3-step Cloward-Piven Strategy which includes gun control advocacy to eliminate any serious resistance to the effort.

Step 1 – Politicians must overburden governmental/social institutions to the breaking point.
Step 2 – Politicians must incite social chaos through divisive policies to make the country ungovernable.
Step 3 – Politicians must disarm the public so that they cannot oppose the leftist totalitarian state that will follow.

Left-wing liberal European leaders and America under Obama added uncontrolled immigration with divisive immigration policies to both overload their respective welfare systems and create social chaos. Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief spent eight years implementing the expanded Cloward-Piven strategy of economic chaos. In 2007 there were 26 million recipients of food stamps – by 2015 there were 47 million. Obama’s open border policies and calls for amnesty flooded the country with illegal immigrants further straining the system and creating economic chaos. Illegal aliens overload our welfare system, cost American taxpayers a whopping $116 BILLION, and rob legal citizens of their jobs. Obama’s executive orders created extraordinary divisiveness by importing a population of immigrants with hostile cultural norms including jihadi terrorists.

Illegal immigration, the ascendance of Black Lives Matter (BLM), and the hysterical screams for gun control are the current weapons being used by the Left and reported dishonestly by the colluding mainstream media in their ongoing attempt to destroy American democracy. The Second Amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms was designed to balance the power of an armed federal government and prevent tyranny. Disarming the American people destroys this balance and awards the government complete control.

Cloward and Piven thought locally – the politicians of today think globally. The globalist elite fully support the Left’s expanded Cloward-Piven termite strategy to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism. Why? Because socialism with its complete government control is the prerequisite social structure for the globalist elite to internationalize the countries, internationalize the police force, and impose enforced one-world government.

The Left are the useful idiots of the globalist elite who simply needed to add their own 4th step to the expanded Cloward-Piven Strategy:

Step 4 – Internationalize the totalitarian states into their new world order of one-world government that they themselves rule.

One-world government is the overarching goal and the underlying motive to destroy America from within. It was described in unapologetic detail 65 years ago by English aristocrat Lord Bertrand Russell in his stunning book The Impact of Science on Society. American democracy is the single greatest existential threat to one-world government and President Donald Trump is America’s leader. The globalist elite are desperate to stop President Trump because if Obama is exposed as the termite king it leaves them without their primetime huckster to continue marching America toward anarchy and social chaos with his “resistance” movement.

If the globalist elite’s deceitful efforts are successful, after 241 years of American freedom the world will be returned to the dystopian existence of masters and slaves because a willfully blind American public was seduced by Barack Obama, the quintessential community organizer, deceitfully promising hope and change for America. The Humanitarian Hoax of the termite king will have succeeded in killing America with “kindness.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Goudsmit Pundicity.

The Facts About Who Pays the Most in Taxes in America

/in , , , , /by

Politicians exploit public ignorance. Few areas of public ignorance provide as many opportunities for political demagoguery as taxation.

Today some politicians argue that the rich must pay their fair share and label the proposed changes in tax law as tax cuts for the rich.

Let’s look at who pays what, with an eye toward attempting to answer this question: Are the rich paying their fair share?

According to the latest IRS data, the payment of income taxes is as follows.

The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes. That means about 892,000 Americans are stuck with paying 39 percent of all federal taxes.

The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes.

About 1.7 million Americans, less than 1 percent of our population, pay 70.6 percent of federal income taxes. Is that fair, or do you think they should pay more?

By the way, earning $500,000 a year doesn’t make one rich. It’s not even yacht money.

But the fairness question goes further. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $39,275 or less, pay 2.83 percent of federal income taxes.

Thirty-seven million tax filers have no tax obligation at all. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 45.5 percent of households will not pay federal income tax this year.

There’s a severe political problem of so many Americans not having any skin in the game. These Americans become natural constituencies for big-spending politicians. After all, if you don’t pay federal taxes, what do you care about big spending?

Also, if you don’t pay federal taxes, why should you be happy about a tax cut? What’s in it for you? In fact, you might see tax cuts as threatening your handout programs.

Our nation has a 38.91 percent tax on corporate earnings, the fourth-highest in the world. The House of Representatives has proposed that it be cut to 20 percent—some members of Congress call for a 15 percent rate.

The nation’s political hustlers object, saying corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. The fact of the matter—which even leftist economists understand, though they might not publicly admit it—is corporations do not pay taxes.

An important subject area in economics is called tax incidence. It holds that the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear its full burden. Some of it can be shifted to another party.

If a tax is levied on a corporation, it will have one of four responses or some combination thereof. It will raise the price of its product, lower dividends, cut salaries, or lay off workers. In each case, a flesh-and-blood person bears the tax burden.

The important point is that corporations are legal fictions and as such do not pay taxes. Corporations are merely tax collectors for the government.

Politicians love to trick people by suggesting that they will impose taxes not on them but on some other entity instead. We can personalize the trick by talking about property taxes.

Imagine that you are a homeowner and a politician tells you he is not going to tax you. Instead, he’s going to tax your property and land.

You would easily see the political chicanery. Land and property cannot and do not pay taxes. Again, only people pay taxes. The same principle applies to corporations.

There’s another side to taxes that goes completely unappreciated. According to a 2013 study by the Virginia-based Mercatus Center, Americans spend up to $378 billion annually in tax-related accounting costs, and in 2011, Americans spent more than 6 billion hours complying with the tax code.

Those hours are equivalent to the annual hours of a workforce of 3.4 million, or the number of people employed by four of the largest U.S. companies—Wal-Mart, IBM, McDonald’s, and Target—combined.

Along with tax cuts, tax simplification should be on the agenda.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

VIDEO EXPOSE: History repeats itself — Hollywood as Sodom and Gomorrah

/in , , /by

Hollywood, California is burning and there is nothing they can do about it. The proverbial cat is out of the bag. The secrets of Hollywood are making headlines daily. Sexual predators, pedophiles, pederasts and Hollywood go hand in hand.

This revelation is not new, its just that today the media can’t keep Hollywood’s dirty laundry from public view anymore. Social media is exploding with old revelations and new videos are being highlighted that show the hypocrisy of of those who have worked to protect these rich and powerful predators. The only question is how deep does this rabbit hole go?

Here are just a few of the videos that have surfaced since the Harvey Weinstein story broke.

In an article titled “Flashback VIDEO: Barbara Walters Scolds Corey Feldman for Calling Out Hollywood Abuse” Katherine Rodriguez reports,

A video clip from a 2013 episode of The View where he shares these revelations about the abuse in the industry has resurfaced after allegations came to light that disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein sexually harassed and abused those working in the industry:

In the article “Awkward: Compilation Video of Celebrities Thanking Harvey Weinstein Goes Viral” Regis Giles published a Quartz video of Hollywood actors Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Penélope Cruz, Renée Zellweger, Michael Caine,and actress Gwyneth Paltrow, who has since accused Harvey Weinstein of sexually harassing her when she was younger, praising him:

How do millennials look at this issue of Harvey Weinstein being a sexual predator? The Young Turks analysed Weinstein’s apology in the video below titled “Harvey Weinstein’s Sexual Harassment Apology: But I’m A Liberal!” The Young Turks panel members Brett Erlich, Nando Vila and Hannah Cranston conclude, “After numerous accusations of sexual harassment Harvey Weinstein has issued an apology that insinuates that he should be forgiven because of his liberalism”:

Harvey Weinstein was at the 2017 Women’s March in Washington, D.C. One of the speakers at the Womens March was Ashley Judd, who has since accused Weinstein of sexual harassment/abuse. Ashley Judd told the crowd, “Our Pussies Ain’t for Grabbing.” Below is Ashley Judd’s full “I am a nasty woman” speech at the January 2017 Women’s March:

Weinstein has donated to Planned Parenthood and numerous Democrat politicians including Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Weinstein is the epitome of the liberal Hollywood mindset – anything goes in terms of my sexual desires. Morals, values have no place. I am to be forgiven because I support liberal/feminist causes that have been designed to destroy the family unit.

Perhaps the most prophetic video is of Weinstein’s interview with former President Bill Clinton. During the interview Weinstein says to Bill Clinton, “I always learn amazing things from you.”

Hollywood is not new. It’s lack of sexual mores is not new. It’s embrace of homosexuality, pedophilia, pederasty and sexual abuse has been told before in the Old Testament, Genesis 19 when the God of Abraham destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. It is prophetic that Harvey Weinstein is Jewish and his actions, which are not unique in Hollywood, have lead to its decline and fall. Hollywood has lost its glitter. It has been exposed for what it really is a den of perverts without moral standards.

Hollywood is facing what Sodom and Gomorrah faced. As Genesis 19:15  and 29 read:

15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.

29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

The city of Hollywood is being swept away and punished. History repeats itself. Those who ignore it are doomed to repeat it.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

All the Other Harvey Weinsteins by Molly Ringwald – New Yorker Magazine

VIDEO: The Truth About Hollywood

Fires far worse last century

/in , , , /by

The fires ravaging California have caused heart-rending devastation.  Forty-one people have lost their lives and damages are now estimated to top $3 billion.

Never ones to let a “serious crisis go to waste,” Green pressure groups are shamelessly attributing the fires to global warming and claiming that this years fires ravaged the largest area ever recorded.

“But that is because the National Interagency Fire Center curiously – and somewhat conveniently – only shows the annual burnt area back to 1960, when fire suppression indeed was going strong, and hence we had some of the lowest amounts of burnt forests ever,” explains Bjørn Lomborg, President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.

“Yet, the official historical data of the United States tells a different story. Look at the Historical Statistics of the United States – Colonial Times to 1970,  There we have statistics for area burnt since 1926 and up to 1970. Reassuringly, the data for 1960-1970 ‘completely overlap.’  This is the same data series.”  Professor Lomborg shared the graph above.

Global warming campaigners want us to believe that history started yesterday; the better for them to “cherry pick” the starting point of a data series to create the false impression that natural phenomena are worse today than in the past.  Their claims don’t survive fact checking.

Senior Policy Analyst Bonner Cohen reminds us at CFACT.org that humans did indeed have a hand in making the California wildfires worse, but not because we drive cars or use electricity.  Recent years have seen bad forest management.  Banning responsible harvesting of timber has resulted in overgrown forests laden with dead trees and brush.  Fire breaks are insufficient and fire fighting policy inadequate.

Moreover, Cohen explains,

“restrictive zoning laws in cities like San Francisco and San Jose have put home prices out of reach for people of upper-middle, middle, and lower income. Unable to afford homes in high-end urban areas, many people are forced to live in distant suburbs, which puts them closer to areas where fire are likely to break out.”

Let us stand with the people of California in word and deed.  Work for better forest management to limit future damage, and arm ourselves with the facts that expose those exploiting this tragedy to push the global warming narrative as the propagandists they are.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of flames of the 2013 Rim Fire in the Stanislaus National Forest. Photo by Mike McMillan/U.S. Forest Service.

VIDEO: My Linda Sarsour ‘Interview’

/in , , , /by

Thanks to the magic of Facebook Live, I was able to have an “interview” with Islamic supremacist Linda Sarsour!

Listen to her opine on the 2016 Election, Donald Trump, Progressives, the LGBT community and more!

Here Are 4 Ways Iran Is Destabilizing the Middle East

/in , , /by

President Donald Trump announced on Friday that the United States would not recertify the controversial Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran—commonly referred to as the “Iran nuclear deal.”

The controversial agreement has been under fire since President Barack Obama signed it in 2015. Critics have stated concerns that the deal did not do enough to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, something that threatens the security of the entire international community.

As Trump outlined in his strategy, Iran’s offences are not limited to its nuclear program. This is why he included countering Iranian aggression as one component of his four-point strategy.

Iran’s growing influence is a threat to regional stability and is harming U.S. allies. Since sanctions on Iran were lifted in 2016, Iran has enjoyed increased financial and economic influence, which it has since invested in destabilizing many of its neighbors.

In addition to having a nuclear program, here are four ways that Iran is increasingly destabilizing the Middle East.

1. Proxy wars and undermining of U.S. partners.

Iran has a long history of backing rebel groups and undermining established regional governments.

In Yemen, Iran is seeking to weaken Saudi Arabia’s influence by supporting the Houthi rebels against Saudi and Yemeni forces and against a Saudi-led Arab expeditionary force. The Houthis have carried out attacks on U.S. and U.S.-allied ships in the Red Sea with Iranian-supplied weapons.

Iran even threatened to take military action against Saudi Arabia.

2. Smuggling of weapons and soldiers.

Iran was able to capitalize on Iraq’s fight against ISIS and the instability that resulted. In particular, it has created transportation and logistical infrastructure to move soldiers and weapons through Iraq to its proxy forces in Syria and Lebanon.

Iran is doing the same in Yemen. One U.S. officer noted that Iran has provided Houthi fighters with a deadly arsenal of weaponry that has even been used to attack U.S.-allied ships in the Red Sea.

Iran has also recruited thousands of Afghan refugees and deployed them as armed volunteer forces to fight alongside President Bashar al-Assad’s troops in Syria.

3. Aligning with brutal regimes.

The Syrian civil war has been bloody and brutal. Over half a million Syrians have been killed, and millions more are now displaced. Iran’s support for Assad is one of the key elements safeguarding his government’s survival.

Iran has dispatched senior military figures, deployed hundreds of Revolutionary Guard soldiers, and provided monetary, intelligence, training, communications, and weapons support to Assad, despite his gross human rights violations.

Iran’s allies include hostile nations like Russia, which has fought alongside Iranian forces and Assad in Syria, as well as Venezuela, which is falling apart under a corrupt, anti-Western government.

Iran’s support of the Palestinian Authority has encouraged a rise in Palestinian terrorism and confidence in one day replacing Israel with a unitary Palestinian state.

4. State-sponsored terrorism.

One of Iran’s most notorious evils is its funding of terrorism. The State Department lists Iran as the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, and for good reason.

For years, Iran has backed anti-Western groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as proxy groups in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen that have worsened ongoing regional conflicts.

In the Gaza Strip, Hamas regularly carries out attacks on Israel by using Iranian-funded weaponry, and having benefitted from Iranian-funded training.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah broadcasts pro-Iranian news and carries out attacks on the Lebanese-Israeli border. Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters in Syria have played a role in propping up the Assad regime.

Iran has also been accused of supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan—a relationship the country formalized in early 2014—and of refusing to punish senior al-Qaeda members.

Preventing the Iranian regime from obtaining nuclear capabilities is important, but that is not the only threat Iran poses to the region.

Iranian influence is expanding, and instead of slowing or preventing this expanding influence, provisions under the Iran nuclear deal have made it easier for Iran to negatively influence and destabilize the Middle East.

Trump’s refusal to recertify the deal could mark a turning point in Iran’s destructive influence.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Madyson Hutchinson

Madyson Hutchinson

Madyson Hutchinson is a research and administrative assistant at the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: 

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Look Who’s Judging Now

/in , , , , /by

There sure is a lot of judging going on in New York and Hollywood right now. Places that pride themselves on non-judgmentalism. Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein has been accused of – and admitted to – sexually harassing and physically assaulting actresses and other women for decades. Many are saying it was an open secret in the movie business. Weinstein may not be a household name, but he is considered one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. It took a few days, but Hollywood liberals have now taken to social media to openly judge Weinstein’s actions as wrong. A lot of people are calling him a pig, a monster, and worse. That’s right, these secular progressives who don’t believe in judging are on their moral high horse.

I have often said that the favorite Bible verse of those who don’t believe the Bible is Matthew 7:1 where Jesus says: “Judge not, that you be not judged.” As with most verses in the Scripture, it’s helpful to read the before and after so that the meaning is in proper context. Read in context, it is clear that Jesus is warning against self-righteousness and hypocrisy. He is not preaching sexual freedom. But in popular culture, what happens to this idea of not judging is that whenever a Christian points out that a certain behavior is immoral or sinful according to the Bible, then that person or group of people is immediately attacked by those who don’t believe the Bible, and called “self-righteous” or “religious fanatics.” And who isn’t against self-righteousness? It’s one of the most off-putting personality traits someone can have. People who practice self-righteousness or a “holier than thou” attitude, usually don’t have many friends. But it is ironic that people who do not believe the Bible to be the final authority on morality do feel the need to point out to people who do how their theology is wrong.

In fact, some of those folks are reading this now and are about to post a message against Tim Wildmon for being a self-righteous man who tries to tell other people how to live. These folks of course will be passing judgment on me declaring that I should not be passing judgment when really I haven’t passed any judgment at all in this particular column. I have only written about the issue of passing judgment. So if you are going to post a message about Tim Wildmon passing judgment please wait until the next column when I really will be passing judgment on someone I’m sure. Probably Democrats. But I digress…

If you think about it, it’s really not judging that people have a problem with. It’s judging negatively. For example, no one gets upset when someone says something complimentary about another’s behavior, even though by doing so, they have passed judgment. But it’s a judgment of affirmation. No, it’s only when they say something of disapproval that the offended party then comes back with “Quit judging me!”

The truth is that the Bible, including the teachings of Jesus, is full of judgment. It tells us what is good and what is evil. It tells us what is right and what is wrong. It tells us what is moral and what is immoral. It tells us what to practice and what to shun. If you don’t want to be accountable for your life and your behavior, it’s best to avoid the Bible. And many do so for that very reason.

Every day the goal of Christians should be to obey and live out what the Bible teaches both inwardly and outwardly. Sometimes we will fail because, as long as we are here on earth, we have to contend with the war between the spirit and the flesh. It is unnatural to deny the flesh, so by the grace of God we have to discipline ourselves to submit to God’s will. It’s also called self-control. This is a day to day process. This is also why humility is so important. Humility is the opposite of arrogance or self-righteousness, which brings us back to judging. We are all capable of doing bad things, sometimes very bad things. For that reason we should be careful not to think too highly of ourselves and pray-lest we also fall into sin ourselves.

Micah 6:8 says: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

I judge that as a good verse on which to end this column.

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

P.S. If our mission resonates with you, please consider supporting our work financially with a tax-deductible donation. The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and most of all, it is secure.

How Donald J. Trump became the leader of ‘America’s Second Revolution’

/in , , , , , /by

Unprecedented, impossible, stunning were words used to describe the election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America. On November 9th, 2016 world leaders reacted to the election of Trump with everything from congratulations to trepidation. However, Dutch MP Geert Wilders tweeted, “Congratulations, @realDonaldTrump! A historic victory, a revolution!”

On November 9, 1989 the Berlin Wall and with it on December 26, 1991 the former Soviet Union fell. Twenty-eight years later on November 9, 2017 Donald J. Trump was elected. During his inaugural address President Trump stated:

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.

[ … ]

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.

[ … ]

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

How did this happen? Why did this happen? What should we do now? Can one man return power to US? If you want the answers to these and many more questions read John Michael Chambers’ latest book “Trump and the Resurrection of America – Leading America’s Second Revolution.”  

John Michael Chambers’ book reminded me of  “Common Sense” a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in 1775–76 advocating independence from Great Britain to people in the Thirteen Colonies. At the time Paine wrote “Common Sense,” most colonists considered themselves to be aggrieved Britons. Before the election of President Trump most citizens considered themselves to be aggrieved Americans.

John Michael Chambers considers himself “a long-term optimist but a short-term realist.” Chambers tasks us to:

Observe the obvious, trust but verify, practice critical thinking, question authority, question everything, and think for yourself. Surround yourself with people of like mind who do indeed truly understand the times in which we live, and expand those circles of relationships.

Being a realist can be challenging. One must first be able to recognize truth from something other than truth.

Chambers warns that, “We are living in the age of an increasing number of smarter phones and an increasing number of dumbed-down people.”

John Michael Chambers

Chambers identifies the enemies of America. He unequivocally notes,

“The trouble, as outlined in this book, is the shadow government’s systems and institutions such as central banks and the debt-based monetary and economic systems. Governments, international bankers, corporations, Hollywood, “big pharma”, secret societies [Skull and Bones], religions [Radical Islam], and others preventing forward progress in exchange for both profit and control and are again using a world of betrayal after trust while utilizing clever deceptive techniques [Hegelian dialectic].”

Chambers predicts that President Trump will continue to come under attack from what he calls “merchants of chaos” who “take our space and make it small.” They, according to Chambers, “[S]tamp out free will and keep us tied and bound. They direct our attention and control our minds for their evils deeds.” Many see this happening with the growing violence perpetrated by groups such as: Black Lives Matter, Antifa and Organizing for Action.

But Chambers gives us hope. Chamber says his mission is, “to awaken, inspire, and motivate people.” Chambers notes:

We must realize that [with the election of President Trump] a major paradigm shift is underway and that we have been living in a web of  deceitful lies designed to entrap us and move us away from the spirit and more toward vanity and worldly possessions as we march blindly like useless idiots down the road to serfdom.

Chambers concludes with this, “The opposite of love is not hate; it is fear. So choose to love. As you obtain more and more truths, then take the correct steps in implementing change, the fear subsides.”

I recommend this book to all those who are dealing with a world that seems to have gone mad with envy, corruption and fear. I chose love.

EDITORS NOTE: John Michael Chambers will be one of the speakers at the America – The Truth Conference: ELECTION DAY 2018 — Truth or Consequences? being held in Sarasota, Florida on October 21st, 2017. Below is a short video introduction to the three speakers and information about this event:

Gun Rights Are Women’s Rights

/in , , , , , /by

The right to bear arms isn’t just a constitutional issue — it’s a women’s rights issue. Author and commentator Katie Pavlich explains why guns are the great equalizer between men and women.

RELATED ARTICLE: NRA Spokeswoman Dana Loesch Forced to Flee Own Home After Anti-Gun Advocates Make Death Threats – American News

TRANSCRIPT:

GUNS RIGHTS ARE WOMEN’S RIGHTS WITH KATIE PAVLICH

Do you want equality between men and women?

I do. Which is why I own a gun. My Glock 43 is my equalizer.

Too NRA for you? Then, let’s take a step back and think about this. I will start with this premise: Men are physically stronger than women.

I know: even this is controversial these days. But men have more muscle mass and greater bone density; they run faster, and punch harder. It’s called “biology.” If a woman is going to protect herself against a man who intends to do her serious harm, she needs to even the odds. And what’s the best way for her to do that? Own a gun — and know how to use it.

Given this, you would think that feminists would be lining up in front of gun shops, spending quality time at the shooting range, and filing for concealed carry permits. But when was the last time you heard a feminist speak out for women owning guns? You haven’t, because
feminists aren’t for gun ownership. They’re for taking guns away from women.

Well, you might say, if no one owned a gun, then everybody would be safer. Yes…and it would be nice if cheesecake was a diet food.

There are over 300 million guns in the United States and that’s not going to change any time soon. But even if we could build a giant magnet, fly it across the country and snap up every gun, it wouldn’t much matter to women’s safety.

In Great Britain, where it’s almost impossible to get a gun, a woman is three times more likely to be raped than in America, according to a study by David Kopel, a professor of constitutional law at Denver University.

Here’s another telling comparison between gun-free UK and gun-owning US: In the United States, only about 13 percent of home burglaries take place when the occupants are home, but in the UK, almost 60 percent do.

Professor Kopel explains the disparity: “American burglars . . . avoid occupied homes because of the risk of getting shot. English burglars prefer occupied homes, because there will be wallets and purses with cash.”

And, by the way, an assailant doesn’t need a gun to be dangerous. What do you do if you’re a woman and a man comes at you with a knife? Or just his bare hands? If you want to depend Free Courses for Free Minds.com on pepper spray or a whistle, okay—but I think your finger on the trigger of a gun would be more effective.

Take the example of mail carrier Catherine Latta. After she had been assaulted and raped by her ex-boyfriend, Latta tried to purchase a firearm. She was told it might take a month to get a permit. “[I’ll] be dead by then,” she recalls telling the clerk. That afternoon, she went to a rough part of town and bought a handgun. Five hours later, her ex-boyfriend attacked her outside of her home. She shot him in self-defense, and saved her life.

I should add that firing a gun is very rare. Just carrying it—let alone brandishing it—is a deterrent.

And, isn’t that the issue? Personal safety? How is a woman supposed to defend herself? What if an intruder breaks into her home?

Liberal TV personality Sherri Shepherd answered this question a few years ago.

“At one in the morning, the alarm in our house went off,” Shepherd told her co-hosts on the popular daytime show, “The View.” As the alarm blared, her husband, Sal, went downstairs to look around. If something happened to him, a terrified Shepherd realized, she had no way to protect herself or her son, Jeffrey. “ …All I had was this wicker basket…[I] don’t have a bat, nothing.”

“‘We’re going to get a gun,’” I told Sal. “[This] just made me realize how vulnerable you are if you can’t protect your home. And the police [were] wonderful; they came about seven minutes later, but to me, that’s seven minutes too late.”

Luckily for Shepherd, the incident was a false alarm. But there are lots of cases where the alarm is real, especially in high crime areas. Yet every year, progressives push for more and more gun control without ever considering who will pay the price.

It won’t be the bad guys. They always get the guns they want. It will be the good women who need to equal the odds in a dangerous confrontation with a man.

Women owning guns shouldn’t be a partisan issue. In fact, it’s a women’s rights issue.

I’m all for equality between the sexes. And I practice what I preach.

That’s why I own a gun.

I’m Katie Pavlich for Prager University.

Why I Oppose Banning Bump Stocks

/in , , , /by

The latest firearm-equipment boogeyman is the “bump stock,” a device allowing one to fire a semi-automatic rifle more rapidly. Liberals learned of bump stocks because Las Vegas murderer Stephen Paddock had modified 12 of his rifles with them.

This has made them a target for prohibition, and an easy one, too. After all, almost no one wants to buy a bump stock, so even many Republicans — and the National Rifle Association — are willing to place greater restrictions on the device. I also have no plans to acquire one, but I wouldn’t even consider outlawing the stock. Why?

Remember last year’s Orlando massacre, perpetrated by Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen? In its wake the gun boogeyman, as it has often been, was the AR-15, the sleek black gun with military looks that makes libs wet their panties. We were told how outrageous it was that such a “killing machine” (is this the Terminator we’re talking about?) was available to the public. But notice something funny?

Paddock also had an AR-15 rifle.

Yet we haven’t heard a peep from the mice about this “killing machine.” The reason?

Right now leftists have bump stocks to focus on. Being driven by emotion and/or Machiavellian motives (depending on the person), the type of equipment targeted in an anti-gun push is secondary, at best. The only consistent theme is an effort to steadily, incrementally erode gun rights. It doesn’t matter what weapon or accessory is outlawed today because there’ll be another opportunity, and target, after the next high-profile gun crime tomorrow.

The argument for a restriction is always the same. Logically rendered it states: “This _________ (fill in the blank) is far too effective to be available to the general public.” What this misses is that Second Amendment rights don’t exist just to secure the opportunity to go target shooting or hunting.

They exist to ensure that Americans can have effective weaponry. Full stop.

Again, realize that the current gun-grabber proposal has nothing to do with bump stocks. It has more to do with bumps in heads passing for brains that can’t figure out that any given anti-gun proposal is just another step in an evolutionary process whose apparent end game is the elimination of all guns. This must be concluded since liberals never articulate a different end game. And there always will be another massacre, and then another, and each will be followed with a further drum beat to outlaw _________, because it’s just too effective for citizens to own. It’s a crumb here, a morsel there, a slice today, a half a loaf tomorrow.

In his book Orthodoxy, in the chapter titled “The Eternal Revolution,” philosopher G.K. Chesterton wrote something relevant here:

“Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to suit the vision. Progress does mean…that we are always changing the vision.”

While this fault, lamentably, plagues most ideologists today to some degree, it characterizes liberals. They’re the situational-values set, and their goalposts are always shifting. This is why giving them an inch only means they’ll come back for a foot and, later, a mile. This is why you don’t give them even a millimeter. It’s why you must insist upon a certain prerequisite before considering any more anti-gun laws: that liberals articulate a hard and fast, unchanging vision, to be presented for consideration, of what guns laws should forevermore be.

No more free-association legislating. No more shots in the dark. No more making it up as you go along. For example:

  • You say bump stocks allow a person to fire too rapidly. Okay, what exactly is the maximum number of rounds per minute a weapon available to the public should be capable of firing? What’s your reasoning?
  • “High-capacity magazines” is an ambiguous term. Exactly what size magazine should citizens be allowed to own? What’s your reasoning?
  • Don’t tell us about “high-powered rifles.” Tell us exactly what the maximum muzzle velocity of a publicly available firearm should be. What’s your reasoning?
  • Another ambiguous (and misleading) term is “armor-piercing ammunition.” What exactly should the maximum penetration power of a publicly available round be? What’s your reasoning?

Once you formulate your concrete vision (for the first time in your lives), please present it. If we accept it, though, note what the agreement means: You don’t get to ask for more anti-gun laws ever again. There’s no more politicizing of the issue after every shooting. The vision is conceived, articulated, agreed upon — and then set in stone.

Of course, I’m sure there’s no way to make such a thing legally binding, and no other agreement with liberals is worth the paper it’s printed on. The point is that without such a vision’s presentation we shouldn’t even take anti-gun proposals seriously. Doing otherwise is akin to pandering to children (and liberals are overgrown children) when they stamp their feet and scream about what they want right now, “just because.”

This doesn’t mean we should be totally averse to compromise. So try this on for size: I propose reducing the 22,000 anti-gun laws currently on the books by 10,000. If that’s unacceptable, however, I’ll agree to a 5,000-law reduction — for now. There’s always next year’s negotiation, after all.

Don’t ever let it be said I’m not a reasonable guy.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Bump Stock Ban Fails in Deep-Blue Illinois

EDITORS NOTE: What is a bump stock?

A bump stock is a device that can be legally purchased and installed onto semi-automatic firearms, such as AR-15, AK-47, and Saiga models, replacing the rifles’ standard stocks.

Unlike automatic firearms, which fire continuously while the trigger is pulled, semi-automatic weapons fire one round per trigger-pull. The bump stock harnesses the recoil energy produced when a shot is fired from a semi-automatic rifle, and it “bumps” the weapon back and forth between the shooter’s shoulder and trigger finger.

Since the shooter’s finger is still pulling the trigger for each shot, the firearm technically remains a semi-automatic, even as it achieves a rate of fire similar to that produced by an automatic.

VIDEO OF A BUMP STOCK:

Janet Jackson ‘Felt Like a Prisoner’ in Marriage to Muslim

/in , , , /by

Islamic teachings command such a relationship. My latest in PJ Media:

Janet Jackson’s now-estranged Muslim husband Wissam Al Mana, according to insiders, “swept in at just the right time” when they first met in 2010, and Jackson was at a low point in her life. Al-Mana “bailed her out and whisked her away to the Middle East.” Soon, however, Jackson began to feel “like a prisoner” in the marriage. Al Mana wanted “a traditional wife who stuck with Muslim traditions,” and Jackson began to chafe in the role.

That’s not surprising. Jackson felt “like a prisoner” because that’s exactly what Islamic law expects of “a traditional wife who stuck with Muslim traditions.” South Carolina Muslim cleric Muhammad Sayyed Adly recently said that the man owns the woman and that women should be “as prisoners in your hands or in your house.”

Adly is no “extremist.” A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar, the foremost authority in Sunni Islam, as “conforming to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community,” stipulates:

[A] woman may not leave the city without her husband or a member of her unmarriageable kin accompanying her, unless the journey is obligatory, like the hajj. It is unlawful for her to travel otherwise, and unlawful for her husband to allow her to. (Reliance of the Traveller m10.3)

As a traditional Muslim wife, Jackson could also have expected to be beaten if she got out of line. This is because the Qur’an says:

[M]en have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. (4:34)

Nowhere, of course, does the Qur’an teach that a woman can beat a man under any circumstances.

The Qur’an also likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills:

Your women are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth as you will. (2:223)

It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man:

Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her (2:282).

It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls (those “your rights possess”) also:

If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, then only one, or one that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice (4:3).

The Qur’an has more that oppresses women. It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter:

Allah directs you as regards your children’s inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females (4:11).

It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (65:4).

Islamic law stipulates that a man’s prayer is annulled if a dog or a woman passes in front of him as he is praying. This is because Muhammad’s favorite wife, his child bride Aisha, is depicted in a hadith (a report of Muhammad’s words and deeds) saying:

The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs.” I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away, for I disliked to face him. (Sahih Bukhari 1.9.490)

Another hadith depicts Muhammad saying that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women:

I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women. (Sahih Bukhari 3241; Sahih Muslim 2737)…

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Muslim accused of honor killing 19-year-old woman

Texas: Muslim who joined ISIS first became religious and started spending more time at the mosque

All 9 federal refugee resettlement contractors support Oct. 18th #NoMuslimBanEver rally

/in , , , , /by

That is a rally partially sponsored by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to be held in Washington, D.C. this coming week. (As of this writing they have 847 confirmed planning to attend, here.)

I told you about it here when the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society was pushing its groupies to attend.

Curious about whether the other eight federal refugee contractors (some receiving nearly all of their funding from the US Treasury)*** were involved, I asked in that post if anyone knew.

I got my answer just now at twitter when the lobbying arm of the refugee industry (Refugee Council USA) put out this message:

 

Screenshot (969)

So who are the members of the refugee lobbying consortium.  Here they are:

Screenshot (970)

Screenshot (971)

Screenshot (972)

***Check out those logos, below are the nine contractors. Where is Congress? Shouldn’t there be a law that if you take most of your funding from taxpayers, you shouldn’t be marching in the streets against the President and us!

Think about it!  All nine contractors (the Catholic church included!) are telling their people to march against the President and for CAIR! 

Why don’t they just take good care of the refugees they are being paid to care for!

LOL! I’m on a roll today, energized by Ms. Wolfe!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

US immigration population hits record 60 million, 1-of-5 in nation – Washington Examiner

City Mayors shirking responsibility regarding Refugee Admissions Program

JW: US Dept. of State says they have NO records on refugee travel loans/repayment (really?)

Australian Socialists march, want detainees admitted to Australia

VIDEO: The Truth About Hollywood

/in , , , , /by

Paul Joseph Watson published a YouTube video titled “The Truth About Hollywood” on Oct 15, 2017.

Watson states:

More and more people are beginning to feel jaded by popular culture.

Pop culture is defined as, “modern popular culture transmitted via mass media and aimed particularly at younger people.”

Hollywood has become the global trader in pop culture. Pop culture is miles wide but an inch deep. What has pop culture done for any culture? That is the question that parents, when they take their children to the movies, must ask themselves. What is the social redeeming value of the movie I am paying for? How does it benefit me, the parents, and our children?

QUESTION: What is the value system of pop culture?

ANSWER: It has none.

Pop culture and Hollywood are void of values, morals, responsibility and the worst voice of any culture or society. Values are derived from a moral society built upon long standing and proven beliefs and laws that hold the family in high esteem. Hollywood’s pop culture must tear down these beliefs, laws and the family.

Watch Watson’s short description of Hollywood:

We Hear You: The IRS, the Rich, the Nanny State, Republicans, Trump, and Tax Reform

/in , , , , /by

Editor’s note: As you probably noticed, The Daily Signal has made tax reform a focus of our coverage and commentary. Here is some of what you’ve had to say on the topic in recent weeks. Be sure to write us at letters@dailysignal.com—Ken McIntyre

Dear Daily Signal: Regarding Rachel del Guidice’s story about the family of ranchers in North Dakota, I am a land surveyor and I get involved in forced sales because they need a survey to transfer property (“Tax Reform a ‘Big Deal’ to Mom Who Wants to Keep Ranch in the Family”).

I watched a farmer lose the farm he spent his childhood helping his parents build. They had over 400 acres, and when the government was finished they had 125 acres. The government set the value at $16,000 per acre because much of the surrounding land was sold as 5-acre tracts, never considering the capital investments to develop that 5-acre lot. When they sold, the land brought only $3,000 per acre, it’s proper value.

Talk about chasing your tail. And the attorneys told them it would cost just as much to fight the government in court. Hard to compete when the opposition sets all the rules and declares all the values. The government is not about doing the right thing; it is about gaining revenues so politicians can buy votes to stay in office and send along that criminal enterprise share to the elites. They will use whatever means possible.

You either pay the government or you pay that attorney friend of the government. All that matters is that they claim enough that they get their share. Washington has become a criminal enterprise. Extortion is their game, a game that includes being poverty pimps and accounting thugs.—Robert Joseph Shannon

If we were to return to a constitutional taxation system and forcing a runaway federal government to live within its means, we wouldn’t have this problem.  A “progressive” income tax is one of the 10 planks of the communist manifesto.—Richard Ely

I’m a tax CPA. I can come up with ideas to satisfy most concerns. As a staunch conservative, and one who recently paid out some estate (death) tax, I am actually not for elimination of it, as charity is a huge benefactor in estate planning.—Jim Fisher

This is a simple proposition: The estate/death tax amounts to double taxation. Anyone think that having to pay double taxes up front is fair or appropriate (aside from our communist/socialist/leftist comrades)? Of course not. The capital gains tax punishes everyone, and is again another form of double taxation.

Taxes to federal, state, and local entities should be based on a once-a-year assessment of income, without all the loopholes, etc. The government should downsize and live within its means (tax revenue) and eschew any further loans.—Derek Dubasik

Could someone please tell me why the government taxes an individual when he or she dies? Isn’t this a double tax on the property the individual had? Don’t people pay taxes on the income they make each year? How about the equipment they buy during that year? The land that is bought, is it not taxed each year by the government?

I’m curious because when my father-in-law passed in 1987, he was a teacher at a Christian university who had written some study guides. He was not classified as being rich, he was faithful to give unto Caesar that which was Caesar’s and unto the Lord that which was the Lord’s.

He was worth $750,000. We met with his lawyer after the funeral, and he told us everything was being handled by the firm: his savings and checking accounts at the bank for personal use, his accounts for his book income. All of which he already had paid taxes on. His house, the land it sat on, his car (a 1975 Dodge), his clothes, furniture, and lawn tools were all listed to be taxed by the government again, because he died.

We received a registered letter a short time later with a check for $35,000, which we had to pay taxes on, and a list of the worth the government had placed on everything.

So it is not just the rich who are hit twice with a tax, it is every person who dies.—Paul Newnum

Dear Daily Signal: About Rachel del Guidice’s report, “Conservatives Call for Tax Reform to ‘Put Small Businesses Back at Heart of Economy’”: You are what you say—or tweet. We could believe in tax reform for small business if the evidence was pro-small business. It’s not.

The bill passed in the House by Speaker Paul Ryan repealing the Affordable Care Act showed no tax reform for health care, no tax reform for the middle class, only tax benefits for the superrich.

So excuse us progressives if we don’t believe tax reform will enhance middle class workers in any way, aside from sabotaging affordable health care through removing the tax penalty for not enrolling in any health program, and the unwarranted shift of $800 billion from states’ Medicaid funding to fat cats who don’t need it.

Consistency isn’t Trump’s strength, but we must believe what our “lying eyes” see—not small business tax reform by Republicans.—Bill Lemoine

Laws are equal for all citizens with the exception of tax law, which punish more the ones who produce more, simply because they have more. If every citizen pays the same amount of tax, there would be no overspending, open budget, waste, poor administration of resources, socialism or communism, permanent welfare, lazy people, Obamacare, Bernie Sanders, Obama, Hillary, or the Democratic Party.—Felipe Solanet

Dear Daily Signal: So, Mr. President, how many jobs are created by the middle class (“Trump: Rich Would Pay Same or More Under Tax Reform”)? Just asking. Time to ante up and fulfill all your campaign promises. Otherwise you are just another political blowhole being sucked into the swamp you pledged to drain. Don’t doubt me. Facts are stubborn things.—Jim Fuscaldo

It’s about time. Just because you live on dividends, it does not mean you’re wealthy. My dad was killed at 35; we lived on dividends from family savings. We paid the highest tax rate possible on $50-a-week income. We need a tax that treats everyone equal, as long as the source is legal.—Elaine Whitmore Cary

“The wealthy” is too vague a term for me to get my head around. Wealth is so relative. Living in the Northeast earning over $250,000 a year, you feel like you can barely keep all the plates spinning. That same figure out in central Idaho would be a fortune. No one pays $15,000 a year in local property taxes for their domicile on a few acres in central Idaho, but try owning a few acres in New Jersey and it’s a whole different thing.—Vladimir Petrovich

Ideally, there should not be an income tax on the people at all; it violates the Constitution as written. But since there is one, it should be equal across the board for everyone and businesses should all have the same tax rate. Otherwise we could consider it favoritism.—Taryl Gibson

Dear Daily Signal: Taxes have been out of control for a long time (“Tax Reform Will ‘Help Everyone,’ Small Business  Owner Says”). When a citizen has to hire professionals to fill out a “simple” tax return, something is wrong.—Jann Leger

Yes, if Congress ever gets it done. Abolish the IRS, have a flat tax. No one has what it takes to make that happen, so the richest and the poorest continue to win on taxes and the middle class pays.—Diana Vanvleet

Dear Daily Signal: Regarding Fred Lucas’ report, I agree that tax credits are a bad idea, even though the philosophy of credits was famously championed by Ronald Reagan (“Trump Says Tax Reform Could Create ‘Millions and Millions of Jobs’”).

I cannot see the IRS as being capable of handling welfare, and taxes are not the place for social engineering. It would work better to increase the personal deduction, remove all other deductions, and just charge a flat tax after that.

It is automatically progressive; you make more, you pay more. But it removes the incentive that so many high earners have for hiding income. For instance, the rental properties we own are worth more as a tax shelter than as an investment. If we pay off the loans, our income soars and we are screwed with taxes.—Bill Tanksley

Around 75 to 100 percent of the corporate tax rate is paid by workers through lower wages . The variation depends on the type of corporation, size, and so on. The personal income tax is a direct cut into American pockets, so how does lowering it not leave people with a bigger paycheck?

This would cause less favoritism through a simpler tax code and more fairness for small businesses and middle class Americans. Especially when most of the deductions, tax credits, and such are traded with a lower rate. The compliance cost and the sheer amount of evasion is already high.

Revenue neutrality is only 0.9 percent above baseline for the corporate tax cut.—Rune-André Tørresdal

Mr. President, we the people don’t wish to be disappointed by our government concerning tax reform either. We already enjoyed that surprise with Sen. John McCain concerning health care reform. If I was the president or a senator, I wouldn’t count on McCain not doing his maverick routine once again.—Cathy Ann Turner

God bless President Trump! There are far more of us with him than are not with him. The media lies, and that’s the simple truth.—Claire Montaina Larson

Didn’t Trump also state that he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it, and he was going to fix health care and no one would be without, and he was going to be too busy working to play golf?  Sheep, keep on sheeping.—Chris Ori

Dear Daily Signal: You don’t value what you don’t pay for, is my thought in reading Rachel del Guidice’s report (“Paul Ryan Calls for Tax Reform, Letting Americans ‘Keep More of Your Own Money’”). Our tax system is the greatest teacher of irresponsibility we have. The 47 percent not paying taxes are plundering our country. The only fair outcome is to have everyone pay the same percentage of income tax.

Our socialist Congress can’t or won’t see that they are ruining America. They want their cut of the robbery more than they want to protect America.

Leaving the means of the successful in their own hands is the only intelligent way to lift the general welfare. This step of enlightenment and away from disrespect of personal property is before us.—Michael Watson

House Speaker Paul Ryan calls for tax reform? What does he think his president has been calling for? Ryan is a politically deaf RINO. Get rid of him at the midterm. Give us a flat tax, and take away that congressional power over those of us who they are supposed to be serving.—Aubrey Yancey

We don’t need tax reform. We need to dump the entire IRS code. We don’t need an income tax. A consumption, or  sales, tax is what is needed. I would much rather pay taxes on what I spend than what I earn.

HR 25 and SB 19 (the fair tax legislation in Congress) would rid us of the IRS and the lobbyists who have created the onerous tax code we now suffer with. It would benefit lower-income families with the prebate on the “necessities of life,” it would eliminate the corporate tax, it would eliminate the inheritance tax, it would eliminate filing taxes with the IRS.

There would no longer be 50 percent of the nation not paying their taxes. Read the plan before you criticize.—Robert Davis

Dear Daily Signal: Too many of our lawmakers in the House and Senate have been there way too long and think they have forever to get things done (“Conservative Leader Says Congress Must Make Good on ‘Bold’ Tax Reform”). They should have retired years ago. Term limits in Congress is the only way things will change.

Tax reform is so overdue. Don’t even consider the European or Canadian way of taxing. Get Obamacare repealed and get a basic tax reform pushed through as you know you will never get Democrats’ acceptance.—Bonnie Clarke

A flat tax is a mistake. We really should have some type of  progressive tax rate that imposes higher taxes on individuals and institutions that benefit greatly from public resources. How many companies would survive without access to an educated workforce?

Wealthy and successful European nations have high sales taxes/VAT taxes, which are regressive but seem to get the job done. I think the deduction for mortgage interest payments should be eliminated completely. It disproportionately benefits the wealthy and large borrowers, and promotes excessive investment in homes by those who are able to afford it.

It will be interesting to see what the Republican majority in Congress comes up with; they did such a good job with the repeal of Obamacare. But Trump promised us “the biggest tax cut ever,” so I have no doubt that is coming very soon. I’m not sure how they will square that with reducing the deficit, but I’m sure the Republican majority will figure out that part too.—John Levin

I wouldn’t mind a flat tax of 7 percent for individuals and corporations—and this includes welfare, which is income. Only deductions would be mortgage interest (legal residence) and contributions. We also need to eliminate government waste and reduce the deficit.

Do we really need the energy and education departments? State issues, so move them to the states. Eliminate red tape. Read former Sen. Tom Coburn’s book “Back in Black.” Interesting. We need more Dr. No’s in Congress.—Tony Jenkins

Dear Daily Signal: Unless the “reform” consists of implementing a flat tax or some form of the fair tax, first proposed by the advocacy group Americans for Fair Taxation, I don’t want to hear about it  (“Trump’s Treasury Secretary Says Tax Reform Will Happen Within the Year”).

Anything else is just more of the same: The government confiscating far too much of our hard-earned money to finance its ever more grandiose, ever more controlling, ever more irresponsible, delusional, and dangerous socio-political ambitions.

The fact that Marc Short, the White House director of legislative affairs, is touting another allegedly “bipartisan” congressional effort and saying he thinks Democrats are “excited for tax reform as well” is hardly reassuring to anyone with a brain and even a modicum of historical perspective. This latest attempt at tax reform may —if it ever gets off the ground—leave us slightly less enslaved. But slaves of the state we still will be.—Dale Allen Steinke

Dear Daily Signal: Regarding Adam Michel’s commentary, “Republicans Just Made Tax Reform More Difficult,” if our brave young soldiers waited for the perfect time to storm the hill, we would still be sitting on the beaches of Normandy. Grow a pair and move now, as we voted you the power to make bold moves.

As “Old Sarge” would say, “If you storm that hill, young men, you may get shot; but if you don’t, I certainly will shoot you.” The meaning of this story is move forward or we voters will certainly give you the ax.

We are bone-tired of your campaign double talk and excuses. We have itchy voting fingers. That isn’t thunder you hear all over America, it’s conservatives turning over every stone looking for honest conservatives to primary you cowards. To hell with you RINOs. We will find some true conservatives to take a stand if you will not.—Malcolm Harbison

As an extreme liberal, I can find little in Adam Michel’s commentary article on tax reform that I can disagree with. It certainly would be better than the current chaos the Trump administration is causing.

And no, there is nothing even socialistic about the Democrats’ agenda. Even extreme liberals like me do not even approach the classic definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.—John Roberts

So there you have it. The GOP insists on playing by the rules (revenue neutral) and gets nothing done, while the Democrats move mountains with lies, fraud, bribery, extortion, and intimidation. So we will keep ratcheting left until we all are told to wear the hammer and sickle.—Anthony Alfero

Spending our hard-earned dollars was never the problem. Spending our hard-earned dollars on waste, special interests, and corruption is and was the problem. There has to be an expose on how the Senate and House govern themselves.

Exempting themselves from Obamacare is just the tip of the iceberg. Many consider themselves elitists: smarter, richer, and with more influence and control than you or I. And in many ways, they are just that. The rules and laws members of the House and Senate have passed to govern themselves are a disgrace. Reform taxes, please, but look to how any new tax laws will affect them and their cohorts.—Maureen McKenna

Congress is not about Democrats or Republicans; we have been taxed beyond human endurance to support illegal aliens, refugees, and welfare, and to make the majority of Congress richer, by taxing hardworking citizens. Enough is enough.—Charlie Pena

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Ken McIntyre

Ken McIntyre

Ken McIntyre, a 30-year veteran of national and local newspapers, serves as senior editor at The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation’s Marilyn and Fred Guardabassi Fellow in Media and Public Policy Studies. Send an email to Ken. Twitter: .

McConnell Wants to Ditch the Blue Slip for Judicial Nominees, and He’s Right

/in , , , , /by

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., supports an important step toward fixing the backlog of judicial nominations that are piling up in the Senate.

McConnell told The Weekly Standard that blue slips—the practice of asking senators from a nominee’s home state for their opinion before the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing—should no longer be used to bring a confirmation to a crashing halt.

Instead, they should be treated as “simply notification of how [a senator is] going to vote, not as an opportunity to blackball.”

Soon after, however, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, stated that ditching the blue slip is his call to make, not McConnell’s.

Grassley did not refuse to ultimately change the practice, but he wasn’t enthusiastic about McConnell’s plan. Grassley’s spokesperson indicated that, at this point, the chairman would respond to “abuses” of blue slips on a “case-by-case basis.”

Blue slips have a long history, dating back to 1917. As part of the process for evaluating a judicial nominee, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee would ask senators from the nominee’s home state to select “I approve” or “I object” on a blue slip of paper.

The rationale was that home state senators may be more familiar with a nominee and have better insights into his or her suitability for a judgeship.

Except for a brief period in the 1960s and ‘70s, blue slips were never used as a way to veto nominees. Unfortunately, some Democratic senators have recently refused to turn in their blue slips in an attempt to prevent or delay the confirmation of conservative judges.

McConnell’s proposed change would be welcome news for David Stras, Michael Brennan, and Ryan Bounds—three nominees to federal appeals courts who have been waylaid by Democrat senators seeking to block their confirmations.

While the blue slip tradition remains in limbo for now, it’s not the only problem judicial nominees face. Once they are voted out of committee, many nominees have languished without a vote by the full Senate.

Fortunately, McConnell also made clear that confirming judicial nominees will be a top priority going forward. He said, “I guarantee they will be dealt with … [r]egardless of what tactics are used by Democrats, the judges are going to be confirmed.”

Judicial nominees aren’t the only ones waiting for a vote, but McConnell further explained, “Priority between an assistant secretary of state and a conservative court judge—it’s not a hard choice to make.” Federal judgeships are, after all, lifetime positions.

To date, the Senate has confirmed only seven judges, including Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Meanwhile, 53 nominations are still pending, and the president is sending more nominees to the Senate each month, working to fill more than 160 vacancies.

At bottom, the Senate needs to get to work holding hearings and confirming these roughly five dozen nominees.

Whether Grassley gets on board with McConnell’s plan or deals with the Democrats who are stonewalling nominees on a “case-by-case basis,” he needs to take steps to ensure the president’s highly qualified nominees are confirmed to the bench expeditiously.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read her research. Twitter: .

Portrait of Tiffany Bates

Tiffany Bates

Tiffany Bates serves as legal policy analyst in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: 

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

RELATED ARTICLE: How to Stop Democrats From Stonewalling Judicial Nominees

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.