Sunday, December 17, 2017

President Trump Refuses Conformity : The Press Is In Unhinged Meltdown.

Again, what is a stake here is Donald Trump doesn't bend to the powers of the press like most other, if not all other presidents have done in the past.

He's a self made man, not beholding to anyone, especially not the press or any politicians that demand he capitulate or be destroyed. He knew that they didn't know who he really was, and the still don't.

He just moves ahead doing what he promised he would do. And maybe this is what is most frustrating and aggravating to the press, he is still successful even after being demonized and vilified as a complete monster.

Truly the press is mentally unbalanced or worse, clinically seen as insane, totally out of control by any standards that are understood as rules for civil discourse by average people that have to work for a living.


The Numbers That Prove How Much the Mainstream Media Hate Trump
Tony Perkins / /

There may be fake news, but there’s no making up the media’s loathing of President Donald Trump.

The press has been unrelenting toward this president since Day One—and the Media Research Center’s data proves it. Even the 89 percent negativity from his early months almost seem benevolent now, with numbers in the 91-93 percent range (the latter according to Harvard).

“Our latest numbers show that coverage of Trump on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts in September, October and November was more than 90 percent negative (our methodology counts only explicitly evaluative statements from reporters or non-partisan sources),” the Media Research Center explains. “In September, there were just 31 pro-Trump statements on the Big Three vs. 359 negative.

In October, the number of positive statements grew to 41, while the negative statements swelled to 435.”

The hostility is tough to ignore, spilling over into fiery White House press briefings and a line of questioning more combative than most Hill hearings. “Add it all up,” the Media Research Center reports, “and coverage of Trump has been 91 percent negative during the past three months. Our study of news in June, July and August found an identical rate of 91 percent negative, which means TV news is unchanged in its hostility toward the president.”

And the bias isn’t just in conservatives’ heads. Former President (and Democrat) Jimmy Carter knows a little something about dealing with the press as the leader of the free world. Even he agrees: “I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” he told The New York Times. “I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”

The reality is that to date the president has systematically gone about fulfilling his campaign promises—and that’s what’s driving people opposed to a conservative, pro-American agenda crazy.

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The Founders Understood Religious Freedom : Government Authority Cannot Deliver

Progressive socialists understand completely what is at stake here when they attack a person right to religious belief as stated in our Constitution. By allowing the individual the freedom to worship a God of faith rather then a socialist god of government, a central all powerful authority, the individual becomes mostly protected, unaffected by demands for obedience and capitulation from socialists.

They, the individual, fully understand there is someone larger then themselves and actually cares about them as individuals. Government can not do that or has no intention of doing that. The last sentence in the narrative below is perfect to explain the power of the individual as against that of the government as outline in the Bill of Rights.

Barack understood this completely when he began his religious jihad for 'transformation'. He stated our Constitution was puzzling to him in that the Constitution just states what the government 'cannot' do, but he thought it should state what the government 'could' do for the people. Barack's intentions are very clear.

Wonder no longer why the progressives socialists do what ever they are allowed to do under the law, and what ever they think they can away with outside of the law, to stop religious freedom being a road block to their personal agendas and ideology of bringing 'the wave' socialist liberalism to the nation.

What the Founders Understood About Religious Freedom That We Must Recover
Michael Berry /

Friday, Dec. 15, marks the anniversary of the day our young nation ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Given the national discussion in recent days over whether the government may compel speech from an ordinary baker, now is an especially good time to consider the very first words of our charter document: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Many today mistakenly interpret these religion clauses to mean something like, “Americans are tolerant of private religious conduct.” But mere “toleration” of “private” religious conduct was precisely what James Madison, a primary author of the Bill of Rights, was careful to avoid. He favored the protection of robust freedom.

Madison’s commitment to religious freedom in public may have begun when he reviewed the proposed Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776. That document suggested “all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion.”

Yet years earlier, he had personally witnessed the supposedly tolerant Colony of Virginia imprison Baptist ministers because their beliefs were out of step with the predominantly Anglican colony. Such religious “tolerance” sent minority ministers to jail.

More fundamentally, Madison recoiled at the notion that exercise of religion was a gift from government to be merely “tolerated.” He saw it rather as a hallmark of a free society—an unalienable right endowed by a creator—that exists independent of government.

Many years after witnessing religious persecution in Virginia, Madison chaired the House conference committee on the Bill of Rights. In that role, he seized the opportunity to reject the language of toleration, instead grounding his proposal for the First Amendment in the language of individual liberty: “the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship … nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.”

The states ratified a revised version of Madison’s text as the First Amendment to our Constitution, and the first of our Bill of Rights. His gift to the fledgling republic was to reject the notion that individual rights, and pre-eminently religious liberty, were mere tokens bestowed by a beneficent state, replacing that view with the remarkable notion that these rights are inseparable from our humanity.

In other words, the right of every person to enjoy religious liberty doesn’t exist just because the government says it does—and any government that attempts to dictate otherwise risks illegitimacy.
That robust view of religious liberty served as a foundation for the remainder of what would become our Bill of Rights.

On Sept. 25, 1789, Congress sent the proposed Bill of Rights to the states for ratification. Two hundred and twenty-eight years ago this month, the states ratified these guarantees of natural rights, embedding them into the DNA of our nation.

America’s unique understanding of individual liberty is captured in the first three words of the Constitution, to which the Bill of Rights was appended: “We the people.”

From the preamble to the end of Article VII, the Constitution outlines how these people would form “a more perfect union” without abdicating their individual liberty to a monarch or a tyrant.

The governed gave their consent to lend some, but not all, of their individual authority as human beings to a central government. For instance, while they would remain free to defend themselves individually, they would vest the authority for the collective defense of the new nation to a government that could raise an army.

Thus, it is significant that after outlining the positive rights of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government on matters ranging from taxation to foreign relations, the Bill of Rights begins by negating the power of Congress—“Congress shall make no law … ”—and recognizing the inherent rights of the people.

The reason for this is simple, revolutionary, and profound: Congress shall make no law because the people retain those rights articulated in the Bill of Rights by virtue of their humanity.

While it was, and is, necessary to lend government a limited amount of individual authority “to provide for the common defense” and “to promote the general welfare,” we the people have never ceded the rights of the free exercise of religion, speech, press, assembly, bearing of arms, due process, and those rights preserved within the Bill of Rights.

This was, and is, revolutionary. No nation had ever successfully undertaken to recognize, much less resolve, the tension between individual liberty and government as America did with its Bill of Rights.

Yet, this tension is a delicate one whose safeguarding demands vigilance and care. Madison was right to be wary of a government that treats civil rights as government-issued. And, as the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of Jack Phillips makes clear, so must we.

The legacy of the Bill of Rights is this: What government did not create, it can neither bestow nor confiscate.

The Affordable Care Act, OgbjmaCare, Shrinking : Bit By Bit, Piece by Piece

I still wonder what the real reasoning was behind the  three senators that voted against the bill to derail the repeal of OgbjmaCare? Truly there had to be something that told them it would be safe to help drive the Republican party into near destruction. Still they did it anyway. This explains a lot about who they are and they can expect for the next run for the Senate. 

If they were progressive democrats and they derailed a democrat bill like this, it's more then likely they wouldn't have made it out of the building without armed guards.

But, as a breath of fresh air and hope springs eternal, Sen. Ron Johnson and others are trying to correct passed errors in judgement by some members of the Senate by introducing a bill to bring the free market back into play that will hopefully solve some of the catastrophic problems of the ACA, OgbjmaCare.

GOP Lawmakers Target Another Obamacare Mandate in States
Rachel del Guidice / /
Republicans in Congress are working to chip away at programs mandated under Obamacare following their inability to repeal the health care law. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., introduced a bill Tuesday to end what they called Obamacare’s “failing” plans that competed with private health insurers in the states.

“Multistate plans were a poorly conceived provision of an even more poorly conceived bill, Obamacare, and repealing these plans would be a good step toward getting our health care system back on track,” Meadows said in a written statement.

The plans create two national health insurance plans facilitated by the Office of Personnel Management(OPM) to compete with insurance plans in each state, and are required in all 50 states.  “This mandate is the definition of government waste,” Johnson said in a prepared statement. “The program has failed to meet statutory requirements and is diverting necessary resources from what should be the OPM’s priorities, such as retirement and security backlogs. Congress needs to let the OPM focus on its job, eliminate this failed program, and work to ensure health care is more affordable for all Americans.”

Arkansas will be the only state to offer multistate plans in 2018, and Meadows, chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, says the health care market would be better served without government interference.

Robert Moffit, an assistant director at OPM under President Ronald Reagan who is now a senior fellow for health policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, said that the fact Arkansas is the only state to offer the plan is telling:

It failed not only in terms of the metrics, in terms of generating insurer participation or coverage numbers, it failed to achieve its fundamental goal, which was to enhance competition in the health insurance exchanges. And the fact that it’s supposed to be in all 50 states and now only exists in Arkansas is a testimony to … the gravity of the monumental nature of this failure in public policy.

Meadows said government should not be part of the health care business. “The OPM should not be in the business of contracting health insurance plans,” the North Carolina Republican said. “I’m grateful to work with Senator Johnson on this bill as we seek to restore common sense, market-based principles to our health care industry that will bring premiums and overall costs down and help make quality care affordable for all Americans.”

Democrats in the House and Senate passed Obamacare, formally known as the Affordable Care Act, without a single Republican vote in 2010, the second year of Barack Obama’s eight-year presidency.
Republicans have sought to repeal Obamacare on 70 occasions, and the House has voted over 50 times to repeal the law.

In a July 28 Senate vote, three Republicans—Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and John McCain of Arizona—blocked what lawmakers dubbed the “skinny repeal” of Obamacare.

Government has failed in its attempts to be a health insurance provider, Moffit said. “The federal government has no business sponsoring health insurance plans to compete against other private sector plans in any case,” he said.

John McCain and Bernie Sanders Are Maverricks? : How Bad Can It Be?

'Hey John, being a communist isn't that bad''. "Yeah Bernie, it worked for you".
These two pea brains are meant for each other. Watching a communist and a political ''maverick'' having a good time says a lot about how out of control our country really is.

John McCain is a lose cannon rolling around the deck in high and dangerous seas. There is no mistaking John intentions.

The Main Stream Media Is Not Legitimate : Disciples of Tortured Rage

The progressive socialist media is not legitimate. A tortured ideology of deception.
Oh no, not another one! But hey, not to worry, there's a lot more where that came from.

One thing you have to give these people, they never say die, they are always willing to try another angle to dupe the public into believing they are a legitimate organization instead of just another outlet for passing on their disciple's collective tortured agenda and ideology of progressive socialism, or much worse.

Barack is the perfect example of unscrupulous and sinister misdirection. He  manipulate the general public with just some soothing words of how he will 'transform America'. He understood how easy it would be to persuade millions into believing he was ''The One'' they have been waiting for. Even after 8 years of outrageous deception of the truth, millions still believe.

Realistically, the best way to understand anything that comes from CNN or any of the other 'lettered' television channels, or any major printed outlets of any kind, other then maybe the Wall Street Journal and a few others, is to never believe anything they say or print. That way you can be assured of never having to decide if what they are telling you is the truth. It's their business to tell a story rather then the truth.

You just know they're lying.

Saturday, December 16, 2017

The FBI - The DOJ - EPA - IRS : Enemies of The Of The People?

The FBI used it's power to attack  a presidential candidate and then the president? 
When the progressive socialist liberal democrats  weaponized the federal government to attack their political enemies, the opposition, they have made our government an enemy of the people.

How the hell did this happen? Who is responsible or has it always been this way?

Is it only now that criminal element that has been lurking in the shadows has decided to come out in the open believing it would get a pass like Barack did for all of his criminal activities for 8 years.

Living With Corruption as A Partner : Gillibrand Will Say Anything - No Limits

C
Civil and moral corruption is in the details
If there ever was a time in our past the could be compared to what is happening now with the progressive socialist liberals in this country, that sees themselves as paragons of virtue, but in reality are understood to be totally immortal and unethical as well as consummate liars that are committed to destroying any semblance of the rule of law as understood by our Constitution or the natural law of humanity.

When a person or group of people that band together to with like agendas and ideology, they become a force for evil, having an quenchable need for power that outweighs any other factor for civil and social behavior.

When they say it is 'by any means necessary', that is exactly what they mean and believe. There are no limits to what they go to get power and take control.

Mr Mueller's 'Hypocritical' Oath Needs Vetting? : I Swear I Am Who I Am!


Sir, you and I know there isn't an obstruction of justice or collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians. We both know it was the FBI attacking the Podesta's server and then blaming it on the Russians, and then colluding with the Hilary campaign to unmask Trump and his campaign works, his family and his supporters of which Mr Mueller knew was happening at the time.

So the question most normal people have at this time is, exactly what is this all about Mr Mueller? It certainly looks like you and the FBI have colluded in the past and are doing so again. I believe that is a crime against the people of this great country, and moral and ethical crime under the law.
Is this Mueller 'hypocritical oath' that needs to be vetted?

The Capital of Israel In Jerusalem : Barack And Friends Attack Trump



'Know the truth' and you will be demonized and hated. And this is way the democrats and Barack's religious jihad for middle east chaos and conflict is now being over turned.

The democrats are not nice people. They do not have the best interests of the American population at heart. Democrats see the population as tools to be used and abuse as necessary to get and keep power.

There cannot be any other reason for existence.

If in the process of taking power the population of America must suffer harm, too bad. It is all about them and their all consuming need to be in control.

Their hate for this nation as it was founded, individual freedom and liberty to pursue success and happiness, is total and what drives them to ''transform'' the country. As Barack stated he couldn't understand why the Constitution was written as to what the government 'cannot do', where as Barack believes it should say what the government 'can do' for the people. Big difference, especially with Barack at the levers of power and mind set of religious socialist liberal jihadist with an all powerful government in control.

Just think how that would have turned out with Hillary now in control and Barack at her right shoulder.

Tax Reform Myths Of democrats Explained : democrats Are Scared!

democrats without tax dollars IS doom!
Everything you ever wanted to know about the tax reform bill that is on it way to approval next week and more is here.  The progressive socialist liberal media is turning themselves inside out in protest, screaming the rich will get richer, the middle class and the poor will get nothing except higher taxes all the while thousands will die a horrible death. 

In one way, the democrats are right, hundreds will die, a political death that is, as the progressive liberals know if the tax bill does all the things the Republicans say it will, and I believe it mostly will, the socialist democrats will find themselves in the unemployment line. A fate far worse the death itself.

A liberal socialist democrat, without sucking on the taxpayer tit, is not a liberal at all but a non-person without means or direction, mentally unable to continue living their normal life of perpetual waste, greed and pestilence.

So little wonder why Senator Schumer on the nightly news, along with Nancy Pelosi rant on about how criminal this new tax reform bill is, but what they really are sputtering about is, if the bill will be successful, benefiting the middle class and the poor, this will spell doom for democrats socialist liberalism. Government will shrink leaving thousands to wander into oblivion. Sad but good to.

5 Myths About Tax Reform, and Why They’re Wrong
Adam Michel / @adamnmichel / Rachel Greszler / December 14, 2017

Next week, the House and Senate will take their final votes on tax reform. The president’s goal is to sign the legislation into law before Christmas.

Although there are still some unknown details, the important parts of the bill for most Americans are already known and would greatly improve our current, woefully out-of-date tax code. The bottom line is that taxpayers across America can expect a tax cut. The bill would lower tax rates for individuals and businesses, double the standard deduction, and significantly increase the child tax credit.

The bill is also pro-growth and pro-American worker. The economy could grow to be almost 3 percent larger at the end of 10 years. That translates to more than $4,000 dollars per household, per year. American families could finally get a real raise. Americans deserve to know the truth about the proposed tax reform packages. There are several myths going around about what the proposed plan would do.

Here are a few of them, and why they’re wrong.

Myth 1
: This is just a tax cut for the rich, and it will actually raise taxes for everyone else.

The truth is in fact the opposite. The Senate tax bill increases the amount of taxes paid by the rich and, according to the liberal Tax Policy Center, 93 percent of taxpayers would see a tax cut or no change in 2019. It found similar results for the House bill. Both tax bills would actually increase the progressivity of the U.S. tax code. That means fewer people at the bottom will pay income taxes, and people at the top will see their share of taxes paid increase.

The Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards notes that the Senate tax bill cuts income taxes for people making $40,000 to $75,000 a year by about 37 percent. People making over $1 million see a cut of only 6 percent.

In two recent Daily Signal pieces, we calculated how 12 different taxpayers would fare under each of the tax plans. The results show that almost everyone will see a tax cut, and only the wealthiest families are at risk of their taxes going up.

Under the current tax code, the top 10 percent of income earners earn about 45 percent of all income and pay 70 percent of all federal income taxes. The U.S. tax code is already highly progressive, and these tax reforms will only increase the trend of the wealthy paying more than their share of income earned.

Myth 2: Repealing the individual mandate will raise taxes on the poor, raise insurance premiums, and kill 10,000 people a year. Only in Washington can removing a tax penalty be considered a tax increase.

Tax reform will likely repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate, which imposes a tax penalty anywhere from $695 to upward of $10,000 for not purchasing the type of health insurance mandated by the federal government.

Depending on income and available health insurance options, the federally mandated health insurance comes with subsidies paid to the insurance company that can range from no more than a few dollars to over $12,000 a year per individual, and upward of $20,000 per year for families. Repealing the mandate would not force anyone to give up their coverage or forego their current tax credits. It would just make the Obamacare insurance optional, and thus increase health care choices.

Eliminating the Obamacare individual mandate will not reduce any taxpayer’s income by a single cent. It will, however, reduce the tax bills of many individuals and families—based on their own choices—by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. The individual mandate with its penalties is also not the “glue” that holds Obamacare together, as some have claimed. It never was.

“The lifeblood of the law is the generous taxpayer insurance subsidies, which attract and maintain the historically sluggish enrollment,” explains senior Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffit. Repealing the mandate will not precipitate doomsday for insurance premiums.

While it is extremely difficult to predict how insurance premiums would change without the individual mandate penalty, we do know that eliminating the penalty will prevent low- and middle-income individuals and families from having to subsidize the high medical costs of others.

One particularly outrageous claim is that due to people voluntarily choosing alternative health care solutions, 10,000 people will die each year because the government is no longer forcing Americans to buy health insurance.

Two economists reviewed these claims and found the exact opposite. They found that there is “poor evidence linking insurance coverage to mortality” and that “the mandate may in fact be elevating death rates in some populations.” When you factor in the economic growth and higher wages from tax reform, the tax bill could actually save lives.

Myth 3: Corporations and their rich owners will receive a huge windfall.
Politicians who don’t want tax reform claim that cutting taxes for business will only help the rich.

Despite the name—“corporate” tax reform—the burden of the corporate income tax falls almost entirely on workers in the form of lower wages. Americans are undoubtedly skeptical about this claim, but the realities on the ground are actually quite simple. When business taxes go down, workers’ wages go up.

That’s not just the result of corporate benevolence. Rather, wages rise because higher profits translate to additional investments that make workers more productive, and businesses that don’t pay workers what they are worth will lose them to competitors who do.

American corporations pay a federal income tax rate of 35 percent—one of the highest in the world. If tax reform can lower that rate to 21 percent, American businesses and the workers they employ will be globally competitive again. Businesses will invest more, hire more workers, and be forced by the laws of supply and demand to raise wages.

This is exactly what happened over the past decade and a half in neighboring Canada. In 2007, Canada began lowering its corporate tax rate. And guess what? Wages grew significantly faster in Canada than other comparable countries.

Most economic researchers agree. A recent review of 10 separate studies published between 2007 and 2015 concluded that when governments cut corporate taxes, workers receive almost all of the benefit through higher wages.

Myth 4
: Tax reform will be bad for seniors.

Retirees may be the most concerned about what tax reform will mean for them, as most rely on relatively fixed incomes. But, the proposed reforms are good news for retirees. For the most part, they would be less affected than other Americans, as the proposed reforms would not change the way Social Security and investment income are taxed.

Many retirees would in fact benefit from the tax bills’ doubling the size of the standard deduction.

While seniors’ earnings and pension income would be subject to new individual income tax brackets and rates, those changes would actually mean tax cuts—not increases—for an overwhelming majority of seniors and retirees.

Myth 5: Tax reform won’t grow the economy, it will only add to the debt.

Congress rightly allowed the tax reform bill to decrease revenues over 10 years by $1.5 trillion—about 3.5 percent of projected revenue. But such “static” budget scores provide zero useful information about how the reform will actually affect the deficit. Properly designed tax reform will lead to a larger economy and higher wages. Each of these economic benefits can result in more tax revenue.

A recent Heritage Foundation analysis shows that the Senate tax reform bill could boost the size of the U.S. economy by almost 3 percent over the long run. Other estimates are even more optimistic. Nine leading economists recently described how the economy could see a boost of up to 4 percent due to tax reform. The President’s Council of Economic Advisers believes the economy could grow between 3 and 5 percent, a range that was independently verified by three economists from Boston University.

Tax reform that grows the economy could result in more than $130 billion of new federal revenue in every year outside the current budget window. And that’s using the most conservative of the estimates above. More optimistic estimates would bring in well north of $200 billion, making up most—if not all—of the static tax cut once the economy reaches its new larger potential.

Congress’ spending addiction shouldn’t stop tax reform, but the tax cuts will be short lived if Congress continues to increase spending every year.

The fact remains that our deficit cannot be eliminated with tax increases. Believing it can denies the fundamental problem: The deficit is driven by out-of-control spending. Spending is where congressional deficit hawks should turn their attention.

It is true that the proposed tax reform packages would mean big changes for individuals, families, and businesses across the United States. Overwhelmingly, however, these changes would be resoundingly positive.

Lower- and middle-income families would receive the largest tax cuts, and they would be the primary beneficiaries of business tax reforms that would generate higher wages and more job opportunities across America.