Friday, November 24, 2017

Progressive socialist Label Republicans As Racists : Barack's New World Order


cid:X.MA3.1510155478@aol.com
How ironic that the progressive socialist liberals democrats in the media and the democrat collective can relegate half of the nation racist just because they hate people that oppose their personal demand for power, all the while they have driven the black population into abject poverty with promises they had no intention of keeping.


Who knew? 


Wednesday, November 22, 2017

When Diversity Is Chaos : Social Manipulation Fails

But really, it's never been about diversity, it has always been about the control of outcomes. But the problem now is those that have advocated for tipping the scales in favor of one race or ethnic group over the other by law, have now lost control of outcomes.

The power to rule has shifted to the mob in the street from those that thought they could effectively change the soical structure to gain an advantage, only to realize too late they are only pawns now to the domestic terrorists on our campuses and in our streets.

The advocates
of social manipulation have lost the advantage they sought. To their collective dismay, their lives are no longer their own.  

Colleges Care About Diversity, Except When They Don’t
Walter E. Williams /

A common feature of our time is the extent to which many in our nation have become preoccupied with diversity. But true diversity obsession, almost a mania, is found at our institutions of higher learning.

Rather than have a knee-jerk response for or against diversity, I think we should ask just what is diversity and whether it’s a good thing. How do we tell whether a college, a department, or another unit within a college is diverse or not? What exemptions from diversity are permitted?

Seeing as college presidents and provosts are the main diversity pushers, we might start with their vision of diversity. Ask your average college president or provost whether he even bothers promoting political diversity among faculty. I’ll guarantee that if he is honest—and even bothers to answer the question—he will say no.

According to a recent study, professors who are registered Democrats outnumber their Republican counterparts by a 12-1 ratio. In some departments, such as history, Democratic professors outnumber their Republican counterparts by a 33-1 ratio. The fact is that when college presidents and their diversity coterie talk about diversity, they’re talking mostly about pleasing mixtures of race.

Years ago, they called their agenda affirmative action, racial preferences or racial quotas. Not only did these terms fall out of favor but also voters approved initiatives banning choosing by race.
Courts found some of the choosing by race unconstitutional. That meant that the race people had to repackage their agenda. That repackaging became known as diversity.

Some race people were bold enough to argue that “diversity” produces educational benefits to all students, including white students. Nobody has bothered to scientifically establish what those benefits are. For example, does a racially diverse student body lead to higher scores on graduate admissions tests, such as the GRE, LSAT, and MCAT? By the way, Israel, Japan, and South Korea are among the world’s least racially diverse nations. In terms of academic achievement, their students run circles around diversity-crazed Americans.

There is one area of college life where administrators demonstrate utter contempt for diversity, and that’s in sports. It is by no means unusual to watch a Saturday afternoon college basketball game and see that the starting five on both teams are black. White players, not to mention Asian players, are underrepresented.

Similar underrepresentation is practiced in college football. Where you find whites overrepresented in both sports is on the cheerleading squads, which are mostly composed of white women. If you were to explore this lack of racial diversity in sports with a college president, he might answer, “We look for the best players, and it so happens that blacks dominate.”

I would totally agree but ask him whether the same policy of choosing the best applies to the college’s admissions policy. Of course, the honest answer would be a flat-out no.

The most important issue related to college diversity obsession is what happens to black students. Black parents should not allow their sons and daughters to fall victim to the diversity hustle, even if the diversity hustler is a black official of the college. Black parents should not allow their sons and daughters to attend a college where they would not be admitted if they were white. A good rule of thumb is not to allow your children to attend a college where their SAT score is 200 or more points below the average of that college.

Keep in mind that students are not qualified or unqualified in any absolute sense. There are more than 4,800 colleges—a college for most anybody.

The bottom-line question for black parents and black people in general is: Which is better, a black student’s being admitted to an elite college and winding up in the bottom of his class or flunking out or being admitted to a less prestigious college and performing just as well as his white peers and graduating? I would opt for the latter.

You might ask, “Williams, but how will the nation’s elite colleges fulfill their racial diversity needs?” My answer is that’s their problem.




ABA Rates Judical Nominations : Progressive socialists Rule The ABA - Who Knew?

Having a known criminal democrat in the debate is wrong.
I wonder what the rocket science is all about here when we consider the make-up of the Amerian Bar Association. They are for the most part trial lawyers and therefore advocates for progressive liberal socialism.

Ever wonder why it seems our justice system is corrupt? Trail lawyers are progressive democrats. How is it possible that the justice system wouldn't be corrupt?

And this isn't the first time the queiston of who and what the members of this organizsiton are and what they intend for the rest of us that must live and work in lawful society. During every election the weight of the trial lawyer's money is seen as pivotal to the outcome.

Luckily, the people decided in the last election to explain who is in charge. Allowing the progressive liberals any say is to agree to one's personal demise.


Group That Rates Trump’s Judicial Nominees Has History of Liberal Advocacy
Sen. Ben Sasse / /

The consideration of federal judges with lifetime appointments is perhaps the most important and long-lasting work the Senate will do between now and the end of the year.
Every senator, Republican and Democrat, took an oath to perform this duty. Nobody took an oath to outsource this duty to any outside organization. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee are apparently willing to hand over their voting cards to the American Bar Association based on the claim that the ABA is an unbiased, indifferent umpire that just calls balls and strikes.

The American Bar Association is not neutral. The ABA is a liberal organization that has publicly and consistently advocated for left-of-center positions for more than two decades now. The ABA has no right to special treatment by members of this body.

It’s pretty simple—if you’re playing in the game, you don’t get to cherry-pick who the referees are. Take just for a moment a look at the amicus briefs that they have filed in recent years.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the ABA supported denying individuals their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

In the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the ABA supported forcing Christian organizations on campuses to accept members that reject their faith.

In Medellin v. Texas, the ABA forced states to recognize the judgments of the World Court in order to stop the execution of a gruesome murderer.

In United States v. Windsor, the ABA supported the recognition of same-sex marriage through judicial fiat rather than through legislative debate.

In Arizona v. United States, the ABA supported a constitutional ban on state and local law enforcement assisting and enforcing federal immigration laws, and the list goes on.
In each of these cases, the ABA decided to wade into divisive and contentious issues. This is their right, indeed, but it is definitely not neutral. In each of these cases and many more, the ABA took what can only be described as left-of-center positions. In each of these cases, the ABA was picking a side. Again, to be clear, they are absolutely allowed to do this. It is what makes this country great.

But it’s laughably naive to suggest that they are an objective and neutral organization. They are not.
The ABA cannot make liberal arguments to the nine members of the Supreme Court and then walk across the street and seriously expect that the 10 members of the Senate will be treating them like unbiased appraisers.

That is essentially what Attorney General Bill Barr said in 1992 when the ABA first began to openly take pro-abortion positions, which led to thousands of members quitting in protest because those members knew that the ABA’s claims to neutrality about political issues were no longer even possibly defensible.

Barr commented on the ABA’s pro-abortion advocacy at the time: “[B]y adopting the resolution and thereby endorsing one side of this debate, the ABA will endanger the perception that it is an impartial and objective association.” Twenty-five years later, Barr’s words were right. His words ring true.

Again, I want to be perfectly clear. The ABA is allowed to have any view that its members want to have, and they are allowed to advocate and to protest on behalf of those views and on behalf of their members. This is America, and that’s exactly what the First Amendment is about. That is fine, but what’s not fine is that the ABA, which is a liberal advocacy organization, would masquerade as a neutral and objective evaluator of judicial candidates.

The ABA cannot take blatantly liberal positions on the one hand and then masquerade as a neutral party on the other and then demand a special seat at the table in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Senate, in this body, to try to tell us who is and isn’t supposedly qualified to be a judge.
Just like the ABA has every right to advance its liberal policy positions, every senator has the right and indeed the duty to give our advice and consent on judicial nominees.

If senators decide that they like and value the ABA’s policy positions and they like and value the ABA’s ratings, they are free to give them due deference and consideration. But don’t hide behind it. Don’t pretend that the ABA is something that it is not. Do not ignore the facts of what the ABA has become. The American people deserve honesty, not thinly veiled partisanship.

She Flipped Off The Presidents Motorcade : Now A Progressive Socialist Hero

Should this woman have be fired for things she did outside of the job, like flipping off the president's motorcade as she rode her bike along side the road? I don't think so. I think it's about free speech.

The company she worked for didn't really show any 'cause' by using the company by-laws for behavior to fire her even though she appears to be progressive democrat, which in turn  means she is mentally ill. On those grounds she should institutionalized, not just fired.

But in reality, who cares what this woman thinks about the president? She is just one more depraved lunatic that suffered a mental break down last November. Medical professionals are puzzled by what happened to so many after that election. They surmise it's pathological.

Oh, and by the way, I know, and this author knows as well, why she flipped off the motorcade and made statements that explains, for most part, her neurosis, she comes from the other side of the mental continuum where common sense is replaced with unlimited ignorance and unhinged delusional contempt for the rule of law and therefore civil society. 

She Flipped Off the President and Lost Her Job. Then, the Left Bailed Her Out.
Peter Parisi /

A photo of a Virginia woman saluting President Donald Trump’s motorcade with
a middle finger got her fired from her job after it went viral—but rather than being embarrassed or even ashamed, she’s savoring her 15 minutes of fame.


That’s as you might expect, alas, given the political and cultural zeitgeist of the day. “All my frustration about this administration just welled up inside me. It felt great,” Juli Briskman explained to interviewer Megyn Kelly on NBC’s “Megyn Kelly Today” show. “I don’t regret doing it, no,” she said.The presidential press pool shot seen around the world after it was posted online has turned Briskman, 50, of Sterling, Virginia, into a “she-ro” of the unhinged anti-Trump left.

Briskman may be out of work after she was fired from her job with Akima LLC, a government contracting firm, but she hardly has to worry about where her next meal will be coming from.
When the news broke, a Hudson, Massachusetts, man on Nov. 6 took it upon himself to create a GoFundMe.com crowdsourcing account online to assist Briskman financially. In the two weeks since, as of Nov. 21, it has garnered pledges totaling $123,351 from 5,490 donors nationwide.
Nice work, if you can get it. It surely beats the heck out of standing in the unemployment line and then having to explain to the clerk there why she lost her job.

With that $120,000-plus from the “Thank You, Juli Briskman” fundraiser, she will easily be able to take a long, leisurely vacation and a year (or two) off while she weighs the scores of job offers that she says she has received since she was identified as the woman in the photo. “Through your generous donations, heavy burdens have been lifted,” Briskman is quoted as saying on the GoFundMe page. “Thank you!”

Briskman should actually thank the White House press pool lensman who took the photograph of her flipping the bird as she rode her bicycle alongside the motorcade as it left Trump’s golf course in Sterling late last month.

About a week later, Briskman “outed” herself as the bird-flipper in the photo, which was taken from behind and didn’t show her face. She used the snapshot as her profile photo on Facebook and Twitter.
She then chose to inform the HR department at work about it, whereupon she was shown the door the next day, told that she had violated the company’s social media policies.
It didn’t matter to her employer of six months, Herndon, Virginia-based Akima, that she had done the “bird-dropping” on her own time or that her social media accounts didn’t mention her affiliation with the company.

The left’s lionization of Briskman didn’t stop at riding to her financial rescue, however. A petition at MoveOn.org—dubbed “Justice for Juli”—calls on Akima to give her her job back or “compensation for her hostile, unwarranted termination.” As of Nov. 21, the petition had been signed by 12,841 people.

By way of contrast, we don’t recall anyone on the right fighting for “justice” for James Damore, much less providing him with a golden parachute or petitioning Google to get his job back.
Damore, 28, was the software engineer and self-described computer nerd famously fired for nothing more than circulating an internal 10-page memo that questioned the tech giant’s politically correct diversity efforts.
Why Did Google Freak Out and Fire an Employee for Spurring ‘Honest Discussion’? 

Damore suggested that the low number of women in technical jobs at Google and elsewhere in Silicon Valley was a result not of discrimination, but rather, of psychological differences between the sexes. He was fired for “advancing harmful gender stereotypes.” Unlike the flood of job offers Briskman says she has received, Damore told the Guardian newspaper of London in an interview published Nov. 17 that he is still unemployed and fears he has been “blacklisted” by the high-tech industry.

In the culture of the not-so-tolerant left, questioning PC orthodoxy is far more offensive, apparently, than giving the middle finger. Turning Briskman into a heroine represents yet another example of the left’s coarsening of the culture—if not what author Diana West in her 2007 book of the same name called “The Death of the Grown-Up”—with Briskman’s incivility in effect being rewarded, and handsomely.

As such, it’s no surprise that the ACLU of Texas rushed to offer to defend a Houston-area woman who was briefly threatened with a charge of disorderly conduct last week by the sheriff of Fort Bend County, Texas. That was because Karen Fonseca’s pickup truck sports an oversized sign in its rear window that reads “F— Trump and f— you for voting for him.”

So, the entropy of public morality continues apace. Where it stops, nobody knows.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Tax Reform With ACA Mandate Scrapped : Democrats Falling On Their Swords

The howling and wailing of the progressive socialist liberal democrats is more then just amazing when just the mention of cutting out the mandate that forces everyone to buy insurance in the Ogbjma health care plan, the Affordable Care Act, democrats are showing us all just how unhinged and mentally unstable they really are.

And given it was the socialist democrats that forced this on the nation costing $billions in state-up costs, and then 10's of $billion more as it has metastasized over the years into catastrophic premium increases, let alone the lowering of healthcare quality in general, it was the progressive democrats alone that voted for this socialist nightmare. Not one Republican voted for it. Not even John McCain! 

Thank you democrats for trying to destroy our health care just to convince the population ''single payer'' government run health care is what's best for everyone. And now the liberal democrats are fighting to keep the very guts of the ACA in force, the mandate, just because it was their creation? Really?  Who are these people?

Don't vote for more democrats! Not ever!! These are awful people. They are not nice under any circumstances.

Democrats in Meltdown Mode as Obamacare Individual Mandate Moves Toward
Emily Miller / /

Democrats, of course, oppose the tax cuts moving through Congress. They believe government knows how to spend your money better than you do. But what has really got their goat is eliminating the Obamacare tax—known as the individual mandate—that Americans have to pay to the IRS for simply choosing not to buy health insurance. This has thrown them into a tailspin of despair.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said eliminating the individual mandate would amount to the “destruction of the Affordable Care Act.” She said it would create no less than a “life-or-death struggle for millions of American families.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the floor Thursday that “[t]he number of middle-class families who would lose money from this bill may be even higher now considering the 10 percent increase in premiums that will occur as a result of the Republican plan to repeal the individual mandate.”Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was asked by Anderson Cooper on CNN about cutting the individual mandate. “It’s a bad idea,” replied the former Democratic presidential candidate. “This is going to throw 13 million Americans off the health insurance they currently have.”

No doubt the talking points that flew around Democratic offices on Capitol Hill were written to scare people into thinking the tax cut forces people off all health care. But it’s a big stretch to state that as fact. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that repealing the individual mandate would decrease the number of people with health insurance by 4 million in 2019 and 13 million in 2027. It also predicted average premiums in the individual market would increase by about 10 percent per year.

However, the Congressional Budget Office was extremely careful to explain the inexact science of its analysis. A whole section of the report is titled “Uncertainty Surrounding the Estimates.” To put it simply, economists can’t predict human behavior. I don’t even know what health insurance I will pick to get the best bang for my buck in 2019. How would bureaucrats in D.C. know?
Nevertheless, Democrats grabbed that report and ran with it, trying to put on a horror movie through the halls of Congress.

Pelosi threatened that as the bill moves toward final passage in the Senate and a reconciled bill through both chambers, “outside mobilization” will be activated to stop it. She said the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to include repeal of the individual mandate “really electrified, energized the base even further … .”

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., tweeted on Tuesday: “RED ALERT: Senate GOP just added provision to their tax plan that would gut ACA & kick 13M ppl off insurance.”
(Yes, Franken tweets blatant falsehoods when he’s not groping women.)

Schumer took to Twitter to put the blame on the White House: “.@POTUS’s absurd idea to repeal the individual mandate as a part of the #GOPTaxPlan would boot 13M ppl from the health insurance rolls and cause premiums to skyrocket – all to pay for an even bigger tax cut for the very rich, those who pay the top rate. What a toxic idea!”President Donald Trump, however, is quite enthusiastic about taking a big whack at Obamacare through the tax bill. Reportedly, Trump encouraged Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., to get repeal into the committee bill text. This is what also infuriated the Democrats.

You can’t help but smile that Republicans are now using a 2015 ruling by the Supreme Court—which let the individual mandate stay in law, with the rationale that it was a tax and not a fine—as a way to ultimately kill the key provision that keeps Obamacare on life support.

Since the mandate is now considered a tax, its repeal will fit perfectly into the GOP tax reform plan.
Last week, a reporter asked White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders if the individual mandate repeal is a priority for the president. “That’s something the president obviously would love to see happen,” she responded.

The Obamacare mandate tax was always more of a “nanny tax” than a way to raise government funding. Democrats included it in the law in order to force the young and healthy to buy into the government-run health exchanges so as to offset the high cost of the old and very sick. But the tax has ended up hitting lower-income and working-class families the hardest because it is much cheaper to pay the tax than to buy insurance on the Obamacare exchanges and pay the absurdly high insurance premiums and deductibles.

The hardest thing to do in Washington is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. If the Obamacare tax can be repealed in the final bill that lands on Trump’s desk, Americans will get back a key individual liberty—the right to choose whether or not to buy government health insurance.

This would be the perfect early Christmas gift for hard-working families. Democrats should think twice before standing in the way of it.


New Museum of The Bible In Washington : A Video Tour

The new museum of the Bible in Washington is a marvel and should be seen by everyone to understand the real legacy of Christianity and how it has transformed the world making a better place to live.

That this museum is in Washington D.C. is not by mistake. What better place to demonstrate the wonders this book then to place in the most corrupt city in the world.

Watch Our Tour of the New Museum of the Bible in Washington
Genevieve Wood / /
The Museum of the Bible opened its doors to the public on Friday, Nov. 17. We got a sneak peek when the museum’s director of content, Seth Pollinger, took us on a tour of one section of the over 400,000 square feet museum.


Considering there are over 500 artifacts and biblical texts in the History of the Bible exhibits alone, it’s estimated that it would take nine days (72 hours) to read every placard, see every artifact, and experience every activity in the museum.

The Museum of the Bible is located near many of the Smithsonian museums scattered along the National Mall in Washington. It is privately funded, most significantly by the Green family of Oklahoma who is best known for owning the world’s largest arts and craft retailer, Hobby Lobby.

Asked about the project, Steve Green, who serves as the museum’s chairman of the board, said in a statement: “The Bible is the best-selling, most translated book of all time and is arguably history’s most significant piece of literature. It has had an unquestionable influence on science, education, democracy, arts and society.”


Watch the video : https://youtu.be/hbxQzWHXERA


Tax Reform Hits New Jwesey Democrats : No Deductions Pose New Political Threat

Everything in nature has consequences and it's the same thing in politics, once the waves begin to pound the shore there really isn't to much that man can do to stop it from coming ashore. The only way to survive the onslaught is to prepare yourself  by making provisions before hand.

In this case, the progressive liberal democrats have to take another long look at how they have operated over years, decades and then make the necessary changes to survive the new reality.

But in lou of most people, especially politicians, being unable to make the necessary changes in real life to survive,  the only option left to them is being eliminated;  thrown under the bus, being remarried.

As GOP Looks to Eliminate State Tax Deduction, New Jersey Democrat Wavers on Millionaires Tax
Rachel del Guidice / /

New Jersey is potentially holding off hiking its income tax due to the possibility of the state and local tax deduction being eliminated in the GOP tax plan, according to the president of the New Jersey Senate. “I’m actually very concerned for the people of this state if this Trump tax happens, and I think we’re going to have to re-evaluate everything once that happens,” Senate President Steve Sweeney said Nov. 15 in reference to hiking the state’s tax rate on the highest earners from 8.97 percent to 10.75 percent.

The Senate tax plan, which was voted out of the Senate Finance Committee Nov. 16, does away with the state and local tax deduction, a tax that allows taxpayers who itemize to deduct from their federal taxable income any property and income taxes paid to state or local governments. Eliminating the state and local tax deduction would provide roughly $1.3 trillion in new revenue for the U.S. government.

Sweeney, who previously maintained, according to the Observer, that “an increase in the marginal tax rate on income above $1 million would be the first bill the state Senate passes when Governor-elect Phil Murphy takes office in January,” appears to be softening his stance.“I voted for it seven times,” Sweeney said, referring to the millionaires tax. “I’ve said it’s the top priority … But I’m actually getting very, very nervous now with what’s happening in Washington.” President Donald Trump has been outspoken about reforming the tax code and has said he wants to sign a bill by Christmas.
Some Republican lawmakers, like Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., from high tax states oppose the elimination of the state and local tax deduction.

“It will have damaging effect on the overall economy and also on individuals. It’s a terrible thing,” King said on in interview with John Catsimatidis on AM970’s “The Answer,” which aired Sunday. Adam Michel, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, said New Jersey potentially stopping plans to raise its taxes shows the positive impact of tax reform.

“This is great news for both New Jersey and tax reform,” Michel said, adding:
The fact that New Jersey is taking a second look at raising their income tax is an excellent example of the horrible incentives caused under the current system. Today, taxpayers around the country are subsidizing New Jersey, New York, and California’s high taxes, creating an incentive to continually raise taxes—they can just pass the tax on to federal taxpayers.

Ending the state and local tax will also level the playing field for taxpayers, Michel said. “Eliminating [the state and local tax deduction] and using the savings to lower tax rates will result in a fairer and less complex tax code—a tax code that no longer allows a $3,000 deduction for a taxpayer in New York and a $900 deduction for someone making the same income living in Tennessee, for example.”

A vote on the Senate tax plan is expected after Thanksgiving. President Donald Trump has been outspoken about reforming the tax code and has said he wants to sign a bill by Christmas. Some Republican lawmakers, like Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., from high tax states oppose the elimination of the state and local tax deduction.

“It will have damaging effect on the overall economy and also on individuals. It’s a terrible thing,” King said on in interview with John Catsimatidis on AM970’s “The Answer,” which aired Sunday.

Adam Michel, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, said New Jersey potentially stopping plans to raise its taxes shows the positive impact of tax reform. “This is great news for both New Jersey and tax reform,” Michel said, adding:
The fact that New Jersey is taking a second look at raising their income tax is an excellent example of the horrible incentives caused under the current system. Today, taxpayers around the country are subsidizing New Jersey, New York, and California’s high taxes, creating an incentive to continually raise taxes—they can just pass the tax on to federal taxpayers.
Ending the state and local tax will also level the playing field for taxpayers, Michel said. “Eliminating [the state and local tax deduction] and using the savings to lower tax rates will result in a fairer and less complex tax code—a tax code that no longer allows a $3,000 deduction for a taxpayer in New York and a $900 deduction for someone making the same income living in Tennessee, for example.”

A vote on the Senate tax plan is expected after Thanksgiving.