You’ve got to hand it to the Democrats and their lap dogs, the main stream media, as they do not give up easily. This month it is President Trump’s tax returns. Only God knows what it will be next month. At least they know how to mount an attack. I would love to see their strategy room adorned with a portrait of George Soros, their patron saint of counter-culture.
I brought the subject of presidential tax returns up a few years ago, but it recently resurfaced. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-MA), made a request of the the Internal Revenue Service commissioner for six years of President Trump’s personal and business tax returns, which will inevitably result in a spirited brawl with the White House. Actually, we shouldn’t be surprised; after all, we’re in an election cycle and the Democrats have again embarked on another smoke and mirrors campaign to assassinate the president’s character. They couldn’t take him down with the Mueller investigation, so now they are grasping at straws to find a way to besmirch his character. So, this isn’t about obtaining his tax returns, which they know they are not entitled to, as much as it is a part of their overall strategy to bash the president.
Donald Trump’s failure to disclose his tax returns thus far has once again come under scrutiny by the press. They contend it is their “right” to review all candidate returns to assure they are not cheating or using unscrupulous tax schemes. Mr. Trump contends his tax returns are being audited by the IRS and, based on the advice of his lawyers, he should not release them prematurely. Of course, the Democrats and the press do not accept this and adamantly demands to see his tax returns. Frankly, it is none of their business
Let’s see if we can clear up a few things regarding this issue.
First, there is absolutely no legal requirement for a candidate to disclose his/her tax returns. This is something the press views as unwritten law, but there is no sand in it. Further, not releasing tax returns is certainly not without precedent. Tax Analysts, a nonprofit organization who monitors presidential tax returns, lists many exceptions:
“For tax year 2001, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney released partial returns. For tax year 2000, Bush released only his Form 1040; Cheney provided a summary of his taxes, but released no forms.”
Ronald Reagan did not report his returns for the 1980 election.
Jimmy Carter also didn’t report his for the 1976 campaign.
“Gerald Ford did not release his returns, but he did release summary data about his federal taxes for the years between 1966 and 1975.”
“Franklin Roosevelt did not release tax returns during his presidency, but many returns were later made available by his presidential library.”
And there are no tax returns listed for Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy. So, as you can see, there is no mandate to release tax returns. It’s just something the Democrats and the press insists they have a right to. They do not.
As an aside, the only tax report on record for President Trump is for 2005 which was mysteriously produced in 2017 and revealed nothing improper.
Second, rarely does anyone read the tax returns, people just want to know if they have been released. In President Trump’s case though, the attacking liberal media will go through it with a fine tooth comb, spotting any possible indiscretion and blowing it out of proportion. If and when the president releases his tax returns, they will undoubtedly be squeaky clean, leading the press to conclude, “Well, yes, I guess he knows how to make money” (but will never openly admit it to the public).
Third, Mr. Trump provided a summary of his financials in his book, “Crippled America.” Why is the press not interested in analyzing this report?
As long as President Trump holds on to his tax returns, the press and his political opponents will claim this is a liability, that he has something to hide. However, let’s assume the president is correct, that he is being audited by the IRS. Those of you who have suffered through such a review will probably side with the President by saying, “It’s none of your business,” or possibly something a little stronger.
First published: June 15, 2016. Updated 2019.
Keep the Faith!
EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Tim Brycehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTim Bryce2019-04-16 07:36:472019-04-16 07:36:47PODCAST: Trump's Tax Returns, Part Deux
Today is a banner day for any American who is committed both to the best interests of the military and the rule of law. After nearly two years of judicial obstruction, President Trump’s commonsense policy on transgender service in the military has finally taken effect (although legal challenges to it are still being litigated).
In July of 2016, as President Barack Obama’s second term was coming to a close, he left another gift to his far-left constituents by lifting long-standing restrictions on military service by transgender persons — those who identify psychologically with something other than their biological sex. Although long justified on grounds of both mental and physical health, President Obama and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter decided that political correctness was a more important priority than military readiness.
A year later, though, Donald Trump was President, and he fulfilled a campaign promise to stop using the military for social experiments, announcing on Twitter that he would reverse the Obama/Carter policy. After careful study by a panel of experts, in March 2018 Defense Secretary James Mattis announced the detailed new policy — and the substantial justifications for it — in a 44-page Report and Recommendations.
Lawsuits were filed against the policy in four different U.S. District Courts, though, and all four judges issued preliminary injunctions to prevent the policy from taking effect. It was not until after the Supreme Court intervened that the last of the injunctions was lifted, allowing the Trump/Mattis policy to take effect.
While none of the cases have reached a final decision yet, the Supreme Court’s decision — that the policy does not cause the kind of “irreparable harm” that would justify a preliminary injunction — is encouraging. It may rest in part on the fact that Service members who have “come out” as transgender from the time the Obama/Carter took effect until yesterday are “grandfathered in” and will still be allowed to serve.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-04-13 04:33:332019-04-13 04:33:33Putting Readiness First: Transgender Military Policy Finally Takes Effect
Last year, The Heritage Foundation studied how the tax cuts would affect Americans in every congressional district across the country. We found that each of the 435 districts got a tax cut and that the average American household paid about $1,400 less in taxes as a result in 2018.
Americans with children also benefit from the tax cuts. A married couple filing jointly with two children saw their tax bills fall by an average of $2,917.
Depending on how much you make, where you live, and how many kids you have, the numbers can look different. You can check out the average tax cut in every congressional district here.
Americans don’t just benefit from the lower taxes. They benefit a second time from higher wages generated by a faster-growing economy. Lower taxes for businesses and individuals help fuel more investment and innovation, which means more jobs and higher wages.
Over the next 10 years, thanks to a larger economy, the typical American will benefit from over $26,000 more in take-home pay, or $44,697 for a family of four.
Average tax cuts can be a bit abstract and can seem too good to be true, so we crunched the numbers for specific taxpayers. Here are two examples.
Sofia Lopez, a single teacher making $50,000, paid $5,474 in federal income taxes for 2017. This year, she paid $1,104 less to the federal government. Her marginal tax rate dropped from 25% to 12%. Overall, she got a 20% tax cut.
Under the old tax code, John and Sarah Jones—a married couple with combined earnings of $75,000, three children, and a home mortgage—paid $1,753 last year. They just finished filing their taxes, and this year their federal income tax bill will decline by $2,014. In fact, because of the larger $2,000 child tax credit, they will get a refundable credit of $261.
As a result of tax reform, 9 out of 10 taxpayers got a tax cut, which most Americans received through lower employer withholding.
Even if most people got a tax cut, some people are concerned that their tax refunds might be smaller after initial reports showed that some refunds could be smaller than in previous years.
The key to remember here is that tax refunds are the government paying you back if you overpaid your taxes throughout the year. They are not related to the size of your actual tax cut. Nonetheless, folks are still rightly concerned about the unanticipated change.
Since the initial reporting, revised numbers now show that average refunds are about the same as last year. Americans likely got a tax cut and still got the refund they were expecting.
Another change that has gotten a lot of negative attention is the capping of the state and local tax deduction (SALT). This cap begins to fix the deduction that until recently had subsidized unusually high taxes in some states at the expense of federal taxpayers in low-tax states.
After sustained negative press, Ryan C. Sheppard, an accountant at Knight Rolleri Sheppard in Fairfield, Connecticut, recently explained to Bloomberg that “[a] lot of folks are coming in assuming they’re going to lose under the new tax law when in fact, they’re not.” That’s because the cap was paired with new lower tax rates and other reforms, like a larger exemption for the alternative minimum tax.
It has now been more than a year since the tax cuts were signed into law, and many Americans may have forgotten how the law changed.
Lower Tax Rates. Tax rates were cut across all seven of the income tax brackets. The top marginal rate decreased from 39.6% to 37%. The marginal rate for a single earner making $50,000 dropped from 25% to 22%, while the rate for a married couple with $75,000 of income declined from 15% to 12%.
Bigger Standard Deduction. The amount of income fully exempt from the income tax, called the standard deduction, almost doubled. For married joint filers, the deduction is $24,000; for single filers, it is $12,000. The new larger deduction takes the place of the personal exemption and simplifies tax filing. About 9 in 10 taxpayers will simply claim the new standard deduction in 2018 rather than itemize their taxes.
$2,000 Child Tax Credit. The child tax credit doubled from $1,000 to $2,000 per child and begins to phase out at almost quadruple the income level of $400,000. The new larger credit more than offsets the repeal of the personal exemption for dependents.
$10,000 State and Local Tax Deduction. Taxpayers who choose not to take the standard deduction are able to deduct up to $10,000 of state and local property taxes and income taxes (or sales taxes) paid.
For individuals, the bill also expanded 529 college savings accounts to K-12 expenses, limited the mortgage interest deduction for new mortgages, zeroed out the individual mandate tax, raised the death tax exclusion, eliminated the phase-out of itemized deductions, and increased the exemption for the alternative minimum tax, among many other changes.
But all of the individual tax cuts expire after 2025 and will need to be extended. Otherwise, Americans will face steep tax increases down the road.
Taken as a whole, these changes simplified taxpaying for typical American taxpayers and cut their taxes by thousands of dollars. Thanks to tax reform, paying taxes this year will be less painful than last year.
Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.
The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.
Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.
President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.
Will you activate your membership with a tax-deductible gift today?
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-04-10 06:10:552019-04-12 04:47:24The Truth About How Much Americans Are Paying in Taxes
President Trump has our economy booming. Unemployment claims are at an unprecedented 50 year low. There are more jobs available than there are workers to fill them.
And yet, every Democrat presidential candidate is on a mad dash to socialism. If a Democrat is elected president in 2020, we will be thrust back to the depressing days of Obama’s failed economy; record high numbers of Americans on food stamps, unemployment and disability. Democrats are like drug dealers seeking to insidiously addict Americans to government dependency solely to control their lives, behavior and voting loyalty.
From the beginning of the Tea Party movement, I traveled the country on numerous national Tea Party bus tours, speaking and performing my song, “American Tea Party Anthem” at over 500 Tea Party rallies nationwide.
Reflecting back to Obama’s horrible economy, I fondly remember the five dollar lady. After my performance on stage at a rally in Texas, I was approached by a humble woman. She thanked me for what our team of patriots was doing for our country. She explained that Obama’s anti-business policies cost her husband, a trucker, his job. With tears in her eyes, she grabbed my hand with both her hands, giving me a crumpled up five dollar bill for gas for our tour bus. I instinctively knew that five dollars was a huge contribution from her. The five dollar lady drove home the importance of our mission and responsibility to push back against Obama’s plan to transform America into a socialist nation.
Actually, the Tea Party never went away. We matured, working behind the scenes to elect conservatives, becoming less visible. I became Chairman of the Conservative Campaign Committee, traveling the country helping to elect conservatives in House and Senate races.
With their every attempt to remove Trump from office failing, the evil coalition of Democrats, fake news and the deep state have become totally deranged. They seek to create a race war and violence on Trump supporters while arrogantly breaking laws. No sacrifice is too large or scheme too low if it will remove Trump from of the White House.
Democrats’ extreme lawless resistance requires the Tea Party to become highly visible again. The Tea Party is the righteous legal-resistance to Democrats’ deranged, violent and illegal-resistance.
This means despite fake news media’s 24/7 lies, deceptions and distortions about Trump, more Americans are beginning to discern that Trump is good for America. Lets pull formerly duped Americans into our Tea Party fold to rally behind our president.
Please allow me to address Democrats’ and fake news media’s despicable hate-generating lie that says the Tea Party and Trump are racist. I am a proud black American who attended over 500 Tea Party rallies nationwide. I was showered with patriot love and appreciation. Trump has an excellent record of hiring blacks. Blacks are experiencing unprecedented prosperity under Trump; historic low unemployment.
Brother and sister Americans who love our country, lets join together to save America by keeping Trump in the White House. Please sign on to participate in the April 15th, Stop Socialism Choose Freedom Rallies.
Thirty-two year old Todd Beamer was an American passenger aboard United Airlines Flight 93 which was hijacked as part of the Islamic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Beamer lead a band of courageous fellow passengers in an attempt to regain control of the aircraft from the hijackers. During the struggle, control was lost of the aircraft. It crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, saving the hijackers’ intended target which prevented the murder of more Americans. Upon the passengers launching their attack, Beamer said, “Let’s roll.”
Yes, the Tea Party is back! Quoting heroic American Todd Beamer, “Let’s roll.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Lloyd Marcushttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLloyd Marcus2019-04-07 16:21:312019-04-12 17:44:34The TEA Party is Back with 'Stop Socialism Choose Freedom' Rallies on April 15th!
As income tax season enters its final week, there are many options for filing your returns. Fortunately, software programs and online platforms have reduced the paperwork needed for many taxpayers. However, not all tax filing services are created equal—some of the companies selling these services may be using a portion of your fees to fund organizations that you would not normally support on your own.
Our research has also found Intuit supports several more liberal organization such as the anti-2nd Amendment Brady Center, the pro-“cap-and-trade” Sierra Club, and the pro-sanctuary city ACLU and has also scored 100 on the Human Rights Campaign‘s anti-religious liberty index.
At Intuit’s annual meeting earlier this year, shareholder activists from the National Center for Public Policy Research challenged CEO Sasan Goodarzi over his company’s support for left-leaning organizations, particularly Planned Parenthood. Goodarzi seemed to dodge the National Center’s questions saying:
We deeply believe in our mission of empowering prosperity around the world… which means we care deeply and measure deeply around how inclusive we are. We think about diversity, and we think about that not only because it’s important internally — but those are the customers that we serve… We believe in doing what’s right and we always will adjust if we feel we’re not doing something right.
While we do hope adjustments will be made, Intuit has not signaled any change of heart since the exchange. Therefore, conservatives will want to look to tax filing options that better match their values and refrain from using their fees to fund organizations like Planned Parenthood.
However, conservatives should remember to pay close attention to Intuit’s competitors when it comes to selecting an alternative platform or service provider. H&R Block (1.4 – Liberal), for example, has funded the liberal Center for American Progress, a think tank founded by former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Fortunately for conservative taxpayers, our research has found Jackson-Hewitt (3 – Neutral) remains neutral on all the issues 2ndVote scores.
Filing tax returns is never pleasant, especially for conservatives who abhor the annual reminder of how much the federal government takes out of your paycheck. But, when you choose a better option to Intuit, and H&R Block for that matter, you can get a head start enjoying spring knowing you have taken action to defund Planned Parenthood, CAP, and other liberal activists.
Economist Ludwig von Mises observed the reality that virtually every government action creates unintended consequences that cause problems greater than the ones that were meant to be solved.
But the Democratic Party that is now apparently fully on board with free college for everyone is clearly unaware of this truism. That’s not too surprising as it has to do with economics, history and rational thought — all areas largely abandoned by the modern Democratic Party.
So here are the almost assured consequences that will stem from such a policy (beyond the $7 trillion price tag) and each ends up conflicting directly with the goals of free college for everyone.
Most people will not graduate. Right now, according the National Digest of Education Statistics, fewer than one in three enrollees in four-year institutions of higher learning with open enrollment policies graduate — even after six years. So even if it is free, statistically it is reasonable to predict that two-thirds of those who enter will not come out with a degree. That means it becomes both an enormous misallocation of resources and it squanders years in pursuit of a fruitless endeavor for most. Further, for all these young people, there will be no increase in salary because there is no college degree — only lost time and likely some college-related expenses.
It will create skyrocketing costs. Is everyone accepted who wants to go? If it is guaranteed tuition payment to universities without academic requirements — which has been the Bernie Sanders’ rhetoric — it will mean that these institutions will have even less incentive to control costs. Right now, only health care costs have soared as fast as college costs over the past 30 years. Not coincidentally, both markets are deeply impacted by government. In the case of colleges, it is easily obtainable student loans backed by the federal government, along with Pell grants and other fundings. This guaranteed flow of federal money and the ongoing cultural push for kids to go to college regardless of the need for them to, has driven up college costs and created the debt issue. Making it ”free” would make it much more expensive for taxpayers.
Government will further screw up the college market. The obvious hike in costs would force the political reality of having to control costs by limiting or even lowering tuition. (This is all very akin to the dynamics in the health care debate, except the option of rationing is the opposite of what free tuition is for, so that likely would not be an alternative.) How would universities hire more professors, instructors and add classroom buildings and dorms along with administrators if the government is capping or cutting tuition? Obviously the quality and value of a college degree would plummet.
It wouldn’t accomplish the goal of everyone making more money. Assuming, however, that it does increase the number of college graduates, what does that accomplish? In the big picture, it would mean that a Bachelor’s Degree becomes the equivalent of a high school degree within about a half of a generation, except that the B.A. comes with a lot of debt while a high school degree does not. So the result is that the American people generationally are saddled with trillions more in debt without a discernible increase in the actual value of what the new wave of college graduates have.
And finally, this is becoming even more of a big deal for Democrats at the very time that the labor market is historically tight. Right now, the unemployment rate is about 3.8 percent — below what economists consider full employment.
Further, there are about six million unemployed Americans, while there are seven million job openings — the majority of which do not require a college degree. In truth, the nation and the economy actually do not need more college graduates, particularly in all the wrong fields, i.e. the soft sciences, the arts, literature, ethnic and cultural studies, communications and media.
Evidence? There are 13 million Americans with at least a four-year college degree working in jobs that do not require any college degree.
The push for free college for everyone is much worse than just being a $7 trillion budget buster. It also destroys the value of a college degree, high school degree and years in a young person’s life, all while not accomplishing its primary goals.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2019-04-01 18:33:282019-04-01 18:33:39The Cultural Failure Of Free College
The new Medicare for All bill (H.R. 1384) has come and hopefully will go the way of the pet rock.
But as usual, bills contain hidden gems
The focus on palliative care and lowering costs by reducing “aggressive” end-of-life treatment is one more incremental under-the-radar step along the road to government control over life and death. A culture of hastening death has gradually evolved, disguised as “death with dignity.”
Subtly devaluing life primes the pump for rationing of medical care at all stages by a government-run program that is the exclusive purveyor of medical “benefits.”
This year, legislators were not so subtle. It is bad enough that our elderly are pushed into hospice, but now the compassionate legislators have set their sights on newborns. New York passed, and Virginia floated laws that permit the killing of babies after birth.
Starting in the 1970s, the federal government clearly saw a need to protect medical personnel from the tyranny of the government mandates that could violate religious or moral convictions.
We must not let the government bury our conscience and beliefs under layers of bureaucracy. Medicare for All may mean independent thought for none.
The new Medicare for All bill (H.R. 1384) has come and hopefully will go the way of the pet rock. Everybody now knows the basics: the government will take care of all medical, dental, vision, pharmacy, and long-term care services with no out-of-pocket expenses. The bill prohibits parallel private insurance, and has the glaring absence of a financing mechanism.
But as usual, bills contain hidden gems. Section 104 of the bill tracks the Affordable Care Act’s “anti-discrimination” rule, making it clear that no person can be denied benefits, specifically including abortion and treatment of gender identity issues “by any participating provider.” The bill does not correspondingly reaffirm the federal laws protecting conscience and First Amendment religious freedom rights of medical personnel. Such protections relate to participation in abortion, sterilization, assisted suicide, and other ethical dilemmas.
Most sane individuals agree that we do not want our government to control any aspect of our individual lives—particularly not our religious beliefs and moral codes. When the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sought to clarify such conscience protections, thousands of commenters offered evidence of discrimination and coercion to violate the tenets of the Oath of Hippocrates and their own ethics. Some left their jobs or left the medical profession entirely when their conscientious objections were not honored.
Conscience protections are vital in this time of unabashed devaluing of life. Last year, the Palliative Care and Hospice Education Training Act (PCHETA), passed the House but died in the Senate. This bill would have dedicated $100 million in additional taxpayer dollars to persuade patients to forgo treatment that might prolong life in exchange for a steady stream of increasing doses of narcotics. Already some families feel they are not merely offered hospice as a choice but are steered toward it when their older relatives fall ill, even when the medical prognosis is uncertain.
The focus on palliative care and lowering costs by reducing “aggressive” end-of-life treatment is one more incremental under-the-radar step along the road to government control over life and death. A culture of hastening death has gradually evolved, disguised as “death with dignity.” California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont have legalized physician-assisted suicide with 20 other states considering implementing such laws.
Subtly devaluing life primes the pump for rationing of medical care at all stages by a government-run program that is the exclusive purveyor of medical “benefits.” Our western counterparts with single payer have discovered that offering fewer benefits is the simplest way to control costs. The “Complete Lives System”—the brainchild of ObamaCare physician architect Ezekiel Emanuel—includes worrisome determinants of who should receive care. The system prioritizes adolescents and persons with “instrumental value,” i.e., individuals with “future usefulness.”
This year, legislators were not so subtle. It is bad enough that our elderly are pushed into hospice, but now the compassionate legislators have set their sights on newborns. New York passed, and Virginia floated laws that permit the killing of babies after birth. The U.S. Senate garnered only 53 of the 60 votes needed to pass the Born Alive Survivors Protection Act which would mandate medical care and legal protections to infants born alive after an attempted abortion.
Starting in the 1970s, the federal government clearly saw a need to protect medical personnel from the tyranny of the government mandates that could violate religious or moral convictions. Personal liberty is an integral part of our democratic republic. While a physician’s calling is to render treatment to all patients, this is balanced with an individual physician’s moral beliefs. This is no more apparent than in legislation permitting physician assisted suicide and post-delivery “abortions.” Sadly, under threat of discrimination lawsuits, some physicians have acquiesced to patients’ requests for medications and surgical procedures that conflict with their moral code.
As anthropologist, Margaret Mead so brilliantly wrote, “One profession, the followers of [Hippocrates], were to be dedicated completely to life under all circumstances…This is a priceless possession which we cannot afford to tarnish, but society always is attempting to make the physician into a killer—to kill the defective child at birth, to leave the sleeping pills beside the bed of the cancer patient. … It is the duty of society to protect the physician from such requests.”
We must not let the government bury our conscience and beliefs under layers of bureaucracy. Medicare for All may mean independent thought for none.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Marilyn Singletonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Marilyn Singleton2019-03-13 17:55:162019-03-13 17:55:16Thought Police (Oops, Medicare) For All
ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that nationally prominent appellate lawyer John Bursch will represent the state of Tennessee and its General Assembly on March 19 before a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Thomas More Law Center was retained by the Tennessee General Assembly in March 2017 to file a first-of-its-kind Tenth Amendment lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. The federal government has violated state sovereignty by forcing Tennessee to continue paying for the program after Tennessee opted out and exercised its right not to participate. TMLC is appealing after a federal district court judge dismissed the case. The Law Center is representing Tennessee without charge.
Mr. Bursch, a former Michigan state solicitor general and past chair of the American Bar Association’s Council of Appellate Lawyers, has an impressive client list ranging from Fortune 500 companies and foreign and domestic governments, to top public officials and industry associations in high-profile cases. His cases frequently involve pressing political and social issues, and five had at least $1 billion at stake.
He has argued 11 U.S. Supreme Court cases and obtained summary reversal on three more, compiling a Supreme Court merits record of 10-2-2. He has also argued 30 cases in state supreme courts, and dozens more in federal and state appellate courts across the country. A recent study included John on its “veritable who’s who of Supreme Court litigators” list.
Although Tennessee officially withdrew from participation in the federal refugee resettlement program in 2007, the federal government continues to commandeer state tax dollars to fund the federal program.
Tennessee has a history of supporting the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty. In 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, which passed in the Senate 31-0 and in the House by 85-2, demanded that the federal government halt its practice of imposing mandates on the states for purposes not enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.
Richard Thompson, TMLC President and Chief Counsel, commented: “John’s integrity, outstanding litigation skills, and impressive record on appeals prompted me to ask him to join our fight. I can’t think of anyone more qualified to represent Tennessee and the constitutional principles involved in this case.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Thomas More Law Centerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThomas More Law Center2019-03-13 16:42:012019-03-13 16:42:14Lawsuit Filed Challenging the Constitutionality of the Federal Refugee Resettlement Program
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2019-03-12 15:48:212019-03-12 15:52:27VIDEO: FBI Failed to Complete 276,000 Background Checks in 2018
One of the good things about this new blog is that I can still bring you stories about refugees while enjoying a much broader choice of news across a wide spectrum of involving frauds, crooks and criminals.
This news, meant to tug on your heartstrings (the Left is good at that!), points to an area of the US Refugee Admissions Program that should make your head explode!
But, before you read it remember: Don’t blame these poor old souls we yanked out of Africa and out of their culture, blame the Open Borders agitators and lobbyists in the refugee industry always on the hunt to import more poverty to America.
Although many of the volunteers on the ground just want to do good by the the refugees, the leadership of the industry headed by Socialists/Marxists! wants to import poverty as a way to reshape America.
If it makes no sense to you that anyone would advocate overloading our welfare system, read about theCloward and Piven strategy when you have a few extra minutes.
The UN was feeding them in Africa and here they go hungry! WTH!
Elder Refugees In Kentucky At Risk for Hunger
Feeding Kentucky, a nonprofit with a mission to alleviate hunger across the Bluegrass State, reports that food insecurity is a reality for one in 10 residents age 60 and older.
Elder refugees in Kentucky face an ever higher risk of hunger due to language barriers and lack of transportation.
On a recent rainy afternoon in Louisville, refugees–some of them in their 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s–lined up at outdoor tables filled with fresh leafy green lettuce, bright red bell peppers, cucumbers and mushrooms.
Federally funded program for refugees over 60 years old!
Kentucky Refugee Ministries, or KRM, is a resettlement agency that has the state’s only federally-funded program for refugees 60 and older.This once-a-month mobile food pantry is a partnership between KRM and Louisville’s Dare to Care food bank.
Eva Nyerges is the KRM coordinator for the Louisville Refugee Elder Program.
“We have on occasion had people say, ‘You know, I don’t have enough money for food. I don’t have food stamps. Will you take me to a food pantry?’” said Nyerges. “And that’s why we kind of started trying to show individual people their local food pantry and help them get down here to KRM’s mobile food pantry.”
Older refugees arrive in the US and are eligible for SSI and Food Stamps!
Nyerges says most of those in the Refugee Elder Program get Supplemental Security Income, or SSI.
A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service said refugees are eligible for benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, based on income and resources.
“Yes, I’m happy just to get the food,” said Namahoro. When asked what kind of items she was looking for, Bagaza said “tomatoes and other names she doesn’t know, but the food she got she’s happy, it’s good.”At the outdoor food pantry, one of the elder refugees trying to manage two bags of vegetables and an umbrella is 75-year-old Namagishu Namahoro. She’s from the Democratic Republic of Congoand spoke through interpreter Patrick Bagaza.
Five million elderly Americans are going hungry and we bring in more hungry seniors from Africa, Asia and the Middle East!
Even though elder refugees face many challenges in having steady supply of fresh, nutritious food, they are far from alone. Across the nation, nearly five million people age 60 and over are at-risk for hunger.
I checked the data at Wrapsnet just now and see that we have passed the 50,000 DR Congolese flow to the US that Obama promised the UN we would take.
Of the 50,848 DR Congolese the US State Department and its contractors placed in your towns since the beginning of FY14, 2,215 were between the ages of 51-64 and 653 were over 65 years old. (And, those numbers are just for refugees from the DR Congo!).
What do you do? Every opportunity you get—to speak to an elected official, to write a letter to the editor, or just when talking with friends and neighbors—your message should be WE MUST TAKE CARE OF AMERICANS FIRST!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-03-09 06:54:372019-03-09 06:55:06Kentucky: Refugee Seniors Going Hungry as U.S. Imports More Poverty
On Wednesday, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations held a hearing supposedly geared toward “Addressing the Public Health Emergency of Gun Violence.”
That hyperbolic title, however, betrayed the real agenda of the event, which was to create the false impression that an unprecedented wave of firearm-related violence urgently demands an infusion of federal research dollars.
In truth, rates of firearm-related violence are relatively stable and near historic lows in the U.S., while tens of millions of dollars are already being poured into firearm-related studies by a variety of funding sources
To understand why taxpayer funded “gun violence research” should concern gun owners, it’s necessary to revisit current law and the history of the issue.
That makes sense, because Americans expect their tax dollars to fund (or at least hope they will fund) projects and services for the general welfare, not for self-serving ambitions of whoever happens to be in power at a given moment.
One of these provisions specifically bans using appropriations for America’s public health apparatus to lobby for limitations on Second Amendment rights. It states: “None of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control” (see Title II, SEC. 210 of legislation at this link).
Versions of this limitation have been included in appropriations bills dating back to 1996, when congressional investigations revealed systemic anti-gun bias in certain components of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
On March 6, 1996, a number of witnesses testified before a congressional appropriations subcommittee about how government researchers were misusing public funds to pursue a political agenda.
An Atlanta doctor noted that senior CDC staffers had for years been involved in an annual conference for organizations dedicated to using “a public health model to work toward changing society’s attitude toward guns so that it becomes socially unacceptable for private citizens to have handguns.”
Theses annual gatherings allowed the government scientists to coordinate with political activists in the gun control movement on messaging strategies.
The CDC was also funding research to promote this effort that was low-quality and of questionable significance but that was uncritically portrayed by the media as “scientific proof” that firearm ownership is dangerous.
One of the most infamous studies, for example, is still referenced by gun control advocates to this day as supposedly establishing that residents of a home with a firearm in it are more likely to be killed by that firearm than to use it in self-defense. But, as Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center explained at Wednesday’s hearing, 86% of the homicides covered by the study were committed by means other than the residents’ own firearms. And, he said, researchers undercounted defensive firearm use by ignoring cases in which the assailant was not actually killed with the firearm.
The overarching goal of the CDC’s efforts in the 1990s was not the earnest quest for knowledge but helping to defraud the public into believing the gun control agenda had the imprimatur and mandate of “government scientists” whose only concern was “public health.”
Congress responded to this misuse of taxpayer dollars by enacting a specific prohibition against using funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services to “advocate or promote gun control.”
That provision, which is merely a more specific statement of the general rule against using appropriated funds for lobbying, has often been falsely portrayed by the media, academia, and gun control advocates as a federal ban on gun violence research.
It is true that researchers whose only interest is in pushing a predetermined agenda of gun control certainly have had a lower expectation of federal funding since this provision has been in effect. But as Dr. Lott testified to the panel, the overall volume of research into firearm-related violence actually increased in the years following the appropriations rider limiting gun control advocacy.
Moreover, pursuant to Obama-era executive actions, federal funding for research into firearm-related crime has recently been robust, with Dr. Lott testifying that over $42 million in grants were awarded for these types of projects from 2015 to 2018.
Meanwhile, generating “science” to justify gun laws continues to be a profitable industry apart from federal funding. Several state and private universities have their own well-funded efforts, and anti-gun states are increasingly using public funding for this purpose as well.
To be clear, the NRA is not opposed to using legitimate research methods for serious study into the dynamics of violent crime, including firearm-related crime.
Unfortunately, as with media reporting on firearm-related issues, there is little reason to believe that competence, professionalism, and the detached, rigorous search for knowledge are the primary drivers of these efforts.
In the end, you get what you pay for, and gun control advocates obviously see the veneer of scientific inquiry – especially when it emanates from the federal government – as providing a solid return on anti-gun propaganda investments.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2019-03-09 05:15:242019-03-09 05:15:59Anti-gun Democrats Press for Publicly Funded Gun Control Advocacy
One hundred eleven miles of new or replacement wall is either being built or is in progress on the southern border after Trump’s first two years in office, an administration official tells The Daily Caller.
All told, the administration has secured funding for approximately 445 miles of the total 722 miles desired by the Trump administration, a Caller analysis finds. The analysis holds only if all national emergency and executive action funding is upheld in court challenges.
The administration official stressed that this figure constitutes only 18-foot bollard wall fencing or 32-foot levee wall fencing, which is the barrier that Trump has emphasized as necessary.
The wall accounting begins in Fiscal Year 2017 in which $341 million was obligated for replacement wall in California, New Mexico, and Texas. This money funds construction for 40 miles of new or replacement wall of which 37 miles is completed or in progress.
$1.375 billion was then appropriated in 2018 to build upwards of 82 miles of new or replacement border wall. The administration official noted that approximately 74 miles of new or replacement wall has been completed or is in progress with these dollars. This particular wall was built or replaced in the Rio Grande Valley Sector on the border in South Texas and other locations.
Fiscal Year 2019 saw a major fight between Trump and Congress over border wall funding, with the administration demanding $5.7 billion and Democrats offering up no more than $1.375 billion, not to be used for a wall. Ultimately, after a nearly 35-day partial government shutdown and three weeks of negotiation, Trump accepted $1.375 billion in congressionally appropriated funding and declared a national emergency at the southern border.
Trump’s national emergency declaration and other executive action allowed him to tap $600 million from the Treasury asset forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion of drug enforcement money, and $3.6 billion under his authority as commander in chief.
The national emergency declaration was quickly challenged in court by 16 states, organized by the State of California and filed in the Federal District Court in San Francisco, which appeals to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Officials could not provide a complete estimate of the wall that will be built with the 2019 funds, though they noted that it costs approximately $25 million per mile, putting an estimate at 323 miles of additional border wall. The administration official cautioned that wall funding costs can vary because of terrain but noted that Trump’s actions lack the restrictions of previous appropriations to build wall in much needed areas, like the Rio Grande Valley Sector.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2019-03-07 17:53:302019-03-07 17:54:52Trump Has Secured Funding For More Than Half Of Border Wall
Egads! What is going on in Minnesota? It’s not just MN Rep. Ilhan Omar making news, but now we see that Democrat Rep. Collin Peterson—the dean of the Minnesota delegation!—is making news by telling Trump:
“I’ll guarantee you it’s not going to happen.”
He is referring to the Trump initiative to tell states they must enforce work requirements for able-bodied adults receiving food stamps!
Peterson’s district is considered the most Republican in the state, but obviously not Republican enough or they wouldn’t have re-elected him to represent them since 2007.
The district has a growing Somali population due to BIG MEAT/POULTRY wanting the cheap refugee labor.
House Ag Chairman: Requiring SNAP recipients to work is ‘not going to happen’
The Democratic chairman of the House Agriculture Committee says the Trump administration’s policy requiring states to enforce work-requirements for SNAP recipients “isn’t going anywhere.”
“I’ll guarantee you it’s not going to happen,” U.S. Rep Collin Peterson said.
Peterson’s comments came after U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue testified last week before the House Agriculture Committee about the state of the rural economy. Committee members asked him about the impact of tariffs on farmers, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, the effects of natural disasters, and the expansion of rural broadband access, among other questions.
The Trump administration is revising a 22-year-old federal regulation that has enabled states to acquire waivers exempting able-bodied adults without dependents (ABWDs) from having to work or undergo job training to receive taxpayer-funded food stamps.
Reforming the rule would reduce the taxpayer burden and enable more individuals to move from federal dependency to self-sufficiency, according to the administration.
Peterson’s remarks also came after a new Government and Accountability Office (GAO) report identified at least $1 billion in food stamp fraud. The extent of the fraud is uncertain, the GAO warns, estimating the abuse of the program could be as high as $4.7 billion.
Peterson’s position, according to Kristina Rasmussen, vice president of federal affairs at the Foundation for Government Accountability, isn’t helping SNAP recipients move from welfare to work or to find gainful employment. It’s also supporting an abuse of taxpayers’ money, the FGA argues.
Roughly 20 million lower-income households receive $64 billion in SNAP benefits. But the GAO*** found that instead of being used for food, many stores are defrauding the program by “selling” cash instead of food.
The fraud, known as “retailer trafficking,” costs taxpayers at least $1 billion. However, the real cost could be “anywhere from $960 million to $4.7 billion,” the GAO adds.
By the way, I’ve noticed that food stamp fraud busts have been happening less frequently then say 5-10 years ago when I first started tracking them and when almost all practitioners of this fraud were ‘new American’ followers of the ‘religion of peace.’
I don’t know if that is because food stamp use is down generally or whether the worst frauds have been caught. It is also possible that the busts are not being reported by the media.
Have a convenience store or mom & pop gas station near you? Keep an eye on the comings and goings! I’m told it is pretty easy to spot the stores where food stamp trafficking is happening—shelves not well stocked, people going in and out all day and night, a new American behind the cash register! Easiest thing to do is to take your suspicions to the local police and let them set up a sting operation.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-03-07 16:30:162019-03-07 16:32:08Minnesota Rep: We aren’t going to make Food Stamp recipients work!
Liberal House Democrats just unveiled the Medicare for All Act of 2019, a comprehensive bill to abolish virtually all private health plans—including employer-sponsored coverage—and impose total federal government control over Americans’ health care.
Despite its sweeping and detailed government control, as well as the imposition of huge but unknown costs, the 120-page bill has nonetheless initially attracted 106 Democrat co-sponsors, almost half of all Democrats in the House.
The legislation is profoundly authoritarian.
For example, Section 107 ensures that no American, regardless of their personal wants or medical needs, would be able to enroll in any alternative health plan that “duplicates” the government’s coverage.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., the bill’s primary sponsor, is at least open about the bill’s intent: “The Medicare for All bill really makes it clear what we mean by ‘Medicare for All.’ We mean a system where there are no private insurance companies that provide these core comprehensive benefits.”
Under Section 201, Congress would decide the content of the health benefits package, what is and is not to be available in the new government health plan. The bill forbids cost sharing, a statutory prohibition guaranteed to induce demand and hike Americans’ overall health costs.
Americans would not be able simply to spend their own money for medical care from a doctor of their choice. Personal contracts between doctors and patients outside of the government plan would be tightly restricted. Under Section 301, “ … no charge will be made to any individual for any covered items or services than for payment authorized by this Act.”
Under Section 303, a provider “ … may not bill or enter into any private contract with any individual eligible for benefits under the Act for any item or service that is a benefit under this Act.”
Even private contracts for “non-covered” medical services require the doctor to report them to the health and human services secretary. Section 303 also stipulates that a private contract between a doctor and a patient for “covered” services would be permissible if and only if the doctor signs and files the affidavit with the secretary of HHS and refrains from submitting any claim for any person “enrolled under this Act” for two full years.
Altogether, these restrictions, layered atop the prohibition on private insurance coverage, would virtually eliminate private agreements between doctors and patients.
In practice, Americans could spend their own money on their own terms with just the very few doctors who could afford to see cash-paying patients entirely outside the system.
In most respects, the new House bill is broadly similar to Sen. Bernie Sanders’, I-Vt., bill. Beyond creating a government monopoly of health insurance, it centralizes key health care decisions in the office of the secretary of HHS; establishes a national health budget; and it creates a temporary Medicare-style “public option” (along with subsidies for enrollees) in the moribund Obamacare exchanges.
Like Sanders’ bill, the House bill would also eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the Obamacare exchange plans, and Tricare, the health program for military dependents. All of these beneficiaries would be absorbed into the new government plan; it would not be a matter of personal choice.
In striking contrast to the earlier version of the House “Medicare for All” bill, the new House bill contains no tax or funding provisions. This is a conspicuous omission. This is especially so because the House sponsors (under Section 204) also incorporate long-term care coverage, including nursing home and community-based care, into the basic benefit package. This coverage would likely be hugely expensive.
Recall that independent analysts from the Mercatus Center and the Urban Institute roughly agree that the true 10-year cost of Sanders’ similar plan would be approximately $32 trillion.
Ken Thorpe of Emory University, formerly an adviser to President Bill Clinton, estimates that the federal taxation needed to finance the Sanders’ plan would amount to an additional 20 percent tax on workers’ income, and more than 7 out of 10 working families would end up paying more for health care than they do today.
The federal spending and taxation needed to fund the new House bill would certainly be larger. Beyond the potential impact of the bill on the nation’s deficits and debt, independent analysts and economists will also focus laser-like on the size and impact of the new federal taxes on individuals and families at various income levels.
Simply taxing “the rich” will not cut it.
The House co-sponsors of the Medicare for All Act intend a rapid transformation of American health care.
Under Section 106 of the bill, they authorize the completion of this massive disruption of today’s public and private health insurance arrangements within just two years.
In the meantime, analysts at the Congressional Budget Office have a very big job to do.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Warren_Medicare_for_All_36492682584-e1551480304398.jpg452640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-03-01 17:45:162019-03-01 17:56:53House Democrats Unveil Plan to Bring Total Government Control Over American Health Care
Can my cow fat skin-creams make me a target here in the United States similar to my dad in communist Romania?
Following the State of the Union address, I found the state of the nation surreal. I kept skimming past articles about the Democratic Party’s proposed economic stimulus packages, collectively known as the Green New Deal.
They propose to fund unsustainable sectors like solar panels—which are already heavily government-backed—by targeting more self-sufficient industries, like meat production. In order to earmark raiding the cookie jar of productive businesses to fund those that aren’t paying for themselves, Democrats have to demonize the target in order to implement punitive measures such as meat taxes.
I know the Green New Deal is based on non-truths and artfully doled misinformation, like the deforestation myth, but most people believe we are losing forest land in this country to the meat industry. That’s one of the lies told to them by our leaders in order to take advantage of the public support and vote. They need a mob to rob.
A Bad New Deal
How did we get to this choke point of punishing meat consumption, as one NJ radical animal rights activist senator proposes, in the form of a tax?
I think I recognize a pendulum swinging back at me. Mom and Dad left everything they had to bring me and my younger brother to the United States. In this country, I am able to experience freedoms such as shopping for food, owning material things, and starting my own business. But that independence comes with heavy financial costs due to already overzealous, arbitrary, and crippling rules and laws.
As a matter of recent personal developments, I started making my own beef tallow-based cosmetic creams and decided to turn my products into a small business. This process is an ancient form of cosmetic production, and part of the reason I did this was to connect people to the truth. I saw the threat to US food sovereignty—the safest, freest, most abundant, most reliable food producer in the world—coming in the form of untruthful propaganda planted by special interests. It comes in the form of false environmental claims like the threat of cow flatulence or pig feces.
Meanwhile, I work in NYC, and I see a different reality. Those urban-dwelling legislators blame cow and pig waste as they step over garbage on the street with plastic cups in hand. I see human waste in myriad forms coming from congested metropolises.
The waste is in plain view walking past storefronts. Constant construction to remodel commercial spaces after every tenant swap is in plain view. NYC takes at least 45,000 construction applications annually. Think of all the garbage from ripping out floors, walls, and ceilings and replacing them 45,000 times per year.
As city dwellers are packed in so tight in the street that they can’t traverse a sidewalk without bumping into one another like ants on an ant farm, we throw away more than 76 million pounds of garbage per day. Nine pounds per person per day of that waste is produced by people while at work. That’s a lot of to-go lunch boxes, cups, bags, and pulp from fresh juices. To what extent are the waste gases from discarded pulp considered agricultural waste?
I wonder about the environmental impact of a throw-away society. The throw-away society blames the ranchers: “We already pay for recycling and get fined when we don’t, so why shouldn’t they pay, too?”
Will the Green New Deal Be a Death Blow to Budding Entrepreneurial Ventures?
So far, I haven’t sold one item, and God forbid I do before all levels of government have been duly compensated for ensuring the safety and well-being of the people from the threat of me and my hand cream. The local health department wants to inspect my kitchen “to make sure that your dog isn’t walking around getting hair onto the product or that you prepare your product on the same counter as your chicken.”
They want me to state that I am a chemist because their fee system is based on the number of chemists on staff.
They will refer me for registration with the FDA to have my products tested and my work facilities investigated some more. There are fees associated here, too. The government can’t provide free public services for free.
Naturally, the IRS will have to be notified and receive their dues. Now we may have a Green New Deal standing in line for my green, too.
Where Have I Seen This Before?
With children in tow, my parents escaped oppression and a lack of human rights—the right to pursue happiness and the right to own property. They also escaped government-controlled death by not having to wait for health care under a communist regime.
Not for lack of resources, total government control in the name of the public interest—with no private business rights—kept everyone equally poor and longing for basic daily resources and comforts, like coffee, fruit, vegetables, meat, bread, dairy, cigarettes, clothes, fashion magazines, videos, and news.
The populace that hadn’t yet died on the inside existed with the frustration of simply not being allowed to live normal lives. They faced the threat of punitive repercussions if they displayed any personal initiative or resourcefulness. Those consequences included regular government raids and confiscation of personal property.
The people waited in line for rations of flour and their monthly maximum of sugar and cooking oil; the political members—ruling elites—feasted on the produce and sheep they plundered from the farmers and ranchers. Then they exported the rest. Romania was the breadbasket of Europe. But it was the black market that supplied the nonconformists and enemy-of-the-state families with the forbidden goods the paternal government deemed unnecessary for the people—smuggled American cartoons and Nutella for the kids and Russian black caviar for a birthday party or gathering to impress connections.
They were the ones who risked getting shot at the border on their way out, for they wanted options for their children, who were considered the purview of the state—another resource to be plundered. Citizens were expected to remain and exist only to act as chattel for the benefit of the state. It was servitude for the good of the people. Socialism had already morphed into stage 4 cancer: communism.
Fast forward 35 years plus 4,751.5 miles, and that nightmare hound is back to nip at the old couple’s heels, sending chills up their tired backs. It is certain that there is a power struggle over our American resources.
Certain special interests have taken it upon themselves to seize control of our abundantly rich, productive, efficient, and privately-owned agricultural sector by demonizing farmers and ranchers, all as a means of prying control from independently productive family businesses.
These nefarious wolves dressed in white are no gentle lambs. They aim to chip away at our personal freedoms in tiny increments until the entire foundation of the Constitution crumbles. The slobbering wolves in white are gaining ground by pulling the wool over our collective eyes with lies. They are salivating to plunder the world’s breadbasket.
Make no mistake: they may blame cow farts, but when you have given them the ranchers, they shall dine on the same meat they have deemed illegal for you and me.
They buy us with empty promises to enact unconstitutional laws that entrap others into giving more and to tax the bad ones for the common good, ultimately entrapping all of us in that same net. As soon as we make more, we are taxed more for more social services that don’t ever solve the problems. Socialism is a crabs-in-a-barrel system where the political elites stand outside, watching some crabs pull the others down and the others give up at the bottom.
Becoming a Public Enemy
As a former refugee from communism, a New Yorker, and someone who is intensely appreciative of the producers who make our world possible—the farmers and ranchers—my aim is to use a small business to connect urbanites with the natural perfection of the raw resources normally out of reach to them. But the Green New Deal would tell them I’m evil and shouldn’t be given the same free access to the market to compete.
Back under the Ceausescu regime, my father was under surveillance by the secret police. He had dual citizenship and traveled freely, which merited him heavy government monitoring. Thanks to the mainstream emergence of extremist environmentalism, militant activists, doxxing, and extremist legislators, I can’t help feeling the pending threat of that hungry hound. Can my nice cow fat skin-creams make me a target here in the United States similar to what my dad endured in communist Romania?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/communism-17071_640.jpg426640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-02-27 13:15:372019-02-28 06:05:24My Family Fled Communism When I Was 6. Now We Fear Our Nightmare Has Followed Us Here