Saturday, October 21, 2017

Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein Are Sexual Icons : Girls and Women Targeted

Hey, have your heard, the progressive socialist liberal democrats find women easily duped, but they like them anyway as they vote for whom every they are told, no matter who or what they are.

Oh wait, maybe you haven't heard or seen anything about icons like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein, as the progressive socialist liberal media doesn't see this as a problem and news worthy.

What? democrats taking advantage of young girls and women? Say it anit so!

They guys are famous for taking advantage of women. Just good fun!

EPA's Pruitt Pushes Back On "Sue And Settle" : Money Laundering Exposed?

Actually this is just the tip of the proverbial ice berg that is law suits by agencies, especially the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). Besides the 'sue and settle' problem there's the progressive socialist liberal money laundering operation that is standard operating procedure among government agencies.. These deals are designed to do just that, take tax dollars and give it to progressive leftists organizations that support the progressive socialist liberal agenda. 

It's a two sided coin, in that when the EPA sues a corporation for rule violation, the agency tells the corporation they can 'willingly' pay the fine to specific organizations that the EPA lists and which just happen to be progressive leftist in nature. Who knew?

And then there's another sweet deal where the EPA or some other agency is sued by organizations that just happened to be progressive leftists, and the agency, in many cases it has been the EPA, settles and then pays tax dollars to these "friends of the court" millions of dollars.

How sweet is that for a bigger then life criminal money laundering deal. The energy department is also big on making deals that are knowingly bogus but proceed anyway, especially 'renewable energy' resources that fail and are required to make refunds to the treasury.

EPA Pushes Back on Practice That Environmentalist Groups Used to Dictate Agenda
Daren Bakst / /    

When environmental pressure groups can promote their agendas through closed-door rule-making with the Environmental Protection Agency, something has gone seriously wrong with the regulatory process. This is precisely what has been happening at federal agencies in recent years—but not for much longer at the EPA. On Monday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive to put an end to this process, which is called “sue and settle.”

On the surface, sue and settle doesn’t sound bad. An organization sues a federal agency to compel it to issue regulations, which the agency was already required to do under the law. Instead of litigating, the agency just settles the dispute.

If only that was how it worked in practice. In reality, sue and settle has many problems. Under sue and settle, environmental pressure groups have been able to file cases, meet with the agency in private, and then settle with the agency, effectively dictating the agency’s agenda.

Even when the agency is merely agreeing to meet a deadline as required by law, the agency and the environmental group will enter into agreements that create unrealistic timelines that can lead to bad policy. They can set deadlines to avoid many of the regulatory safeguards that exist, such as proper cost-benefit analysis.

In many of these cases, there is often a question of whether a federal agency is even required to issue regulations—yet the agency simply caves to the environmental group and does as the group desires.
Even worse, agencies have worked with these environmental groups to develop the substance of regulations before they are even proposed to the public.

And very often, the public is not even aware that the agency is being sued, and will find it very difficult to intervene or have any real voice in providing a different perspective on the lawsuit.
This closed process stands in stark contrast to how the federal regulatory system is supposed to work.
The Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the federal rule-making process, was designed to provide notice to the public, allow for public participation, and give the public a meaningful voice in the regulatory process. Sue and settle circumvents this entire process.

The EPA, though, is taking action. Here’s what the EPA directive says:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in partnership with the states, serves a vital role in protecting human health and the environment. When conducting agency action to achieve these objectives, the EPA must strive to promote transparency and public participation to provide the American public with due process, accountability, and a sense of fair dealing.
To stop sue and settle, the EPA explains it will do the following, among other things:
  • Inform the public that the agency is being sued.
  • Reach out to affected parties about proposed settlements.
  • Provide sufficient time for rule-makings, including to receive public comments.
  • Allow the public to comment on any proposed settlements and request public hearings.
  • Ensure that the EPA is actually required by law to issue regulations as requested by the special interests. The agency won’t take what isn’t a requirement and make it one through a settlement agreement.
  • When settling a case, seek to exclude the payment of attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiffs.
The EPA should be commended for taking this much-needed action against sue and settle. Other agencies, such as the Department of Interior, need to follow the EPA’s lead. Congress also needs to pass legislation to do away with this sue and settle abuse so that it can’t happen in the future.

Trump's New Nominee To Drain the Swamp : Mission Impossible?

I think draining the swamp of useless federal employees will be a task larger the anything any single individual has ever undertaken. The federal government is a monster of redundancy on a scale so large that I believe it will take more the 8 years to rectify, if then.

The federal government is totally out of control, and has little reason to help stem the tide of implosion from the shear weight of it's own corruption of purpose. It is totally self-serving.

And if that's not bad enough, adding the corruption of progressive socialist politics that seeks to dismantle the government "of the people", the 'deep state' or 'shadow government', through willfully regulating out of existence the power of the people to make important decisions as voters as stated in our Constitution.

For the entrenched socialist federal employee, good soldiers mindlessly willing to do the bidding of their handlers in congress and the democrat national committee, really a domestic terrorist organization, little wonder Donald Trump understands the problem and is moving to correct this corruption of purpose.

The Trump Nominee Poised to Be Point Man on Draining Government Swamp
Fred Lucas / /    

President Donald Trump’s nominee to run the federal government’s bureaucracy could be a key player in reforming it, and in keeping the president’s campaign pledge to “drain the swamp.”
Trump last month nominated Jeff Tien Han Pon, 47, to be director of the Office of Personnel Management, the government’s human resources agency. Pon served in the administrations of both President Bushes—with jobs in the White House, OPM, and Energy Department—and held information technology and human resources positions in several private companies.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee was scheduled to hold a confirmation hearing Wednesday on Pon’s nomination.

Pon is largely unknown to those who seek reform of the civil service, said Robert Moffit, a former OPM assistant director under President Ronald Reagan who is now a senior fellow for health studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“The OPM director has enormous authority and can help the president staff the administration, and would be welcome at a time when we don’t see any major draining of the swamp with the massive bureaucracy,” Moffit told The Daily Signal. “Every day, career bureaucrats are issuing decisions on guidelines and making interpretations of regulations. We need management there to take the bull by the horns.”

Trump’s previous nominee, George Nesterczuk, withdrew in August after relentless opposition from federal employee unions. However, Pon seems less controversial and gained the backing of the Senior Executives Association, a nonprofit that advocates for top federal government officials. In a letter to the Senate, SEA President Bill Valdez wrote:
While serving at the Department of Energy, I had the privilege of working with Jeff on a project he initiated to improve human capital processes at DOE. The thought leadership he brought to that project is indicative of the skills and experience he will bring to his new role at OPM. Jeff’s expertise in human capital management has only grown since I worked with him in government, as evidenced by senior roles with the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), Futures Inc., and Booz Allen Hamilton.
Pon also doesn’t face outright union opposition. “While it is early in the nomination process and we reserve final opinion, we appreciate the consideration to name a nominee with a diverse and rich professional history in federal human capital,” Randy Erwin, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, said in a statement early last month to the publication Government Executive. “We look forward to learning more about Mr. Pon and we hope that he, if confirmed, will view employee organizations as valuable and significant partners.”

Trump is nine months into his administration without an OPM director, the official charged with managing the federal workforce. Moffit and other conservatives have criticized the president for not filling key political positions, which they contend is how he can control career federal employees who have civil service protections.

However, Trump recently told Forbes: “I’m generally not going to make a lot of the appointments that would normally be—because you don’t need them. I mean, you look at some of these agencies, how massive they are, and it’s totally unnecessary. They have hundreds of thousands of people.”

Trump’s vanquished Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, recently urged federal employees to stay, asserting: “I don’t want to lose decades—really, if you added it all up, the thousands of years—of experience in the EPA, in the State Department, in the Labor Department. … If [Democrats] can take back one or both houses of Congress in 2018, you will have people you can talk to again.”

Pon has been the chief human resources and strategy officer for the nonprofit professional membership organization Society for Human Resource Management, where he has worked since February 2012. For about 18 months before that, he was chief operating officer for Futures Inc., which helps members of the military transition into the civilian workforce.

At barely 21, Pon worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison under President George H.W. Bush from 1991 to 1992. He returned to Washington to work for President George W. Bush as deputy director for e-government at the OPM from June 2003 to December 2005. He left to work as chief human capital officer at the Energy Department from January 2006 through August 2008.

In between the two Bush presidencies, Pon worked in information technology and human resource jobs at Federal Express, Williams Sonoma, PetCo, and Burger King. He has a doctorate in psychology from the University of Southern California.

Who Pays Taxes And Who Doesn't : Some Pay No Tax At All

I guess it just human nature to want someone else to pay the bill while you get to escape the heavy burden of responsibility for your own expenses that makes life livable. Even if you work for a large corporation that makes your life possible, it's still easy to blame them that they don't help pay the bills for everyone else.

But the progressive socialist liberal democrats are all on board to raise the taxes on corporations, but as Williams states here, the tax would be transferred to the workers and consumers as less wage increases and higher prices.

The Facts About Who Pays the Most in Taxes in America

Walter E. Williams /    

Politicians exploit public ignorance. Few areas of public ignorance provide as many opportunities for political demagoguery as taxation. Today some politicians argue that the rich must pay their fair share and label the proposed changes in tax law as tax cuts for the rich.

Let’s look at who pays what, with an eye toward attempting to answer this question: Are the rich paying their fair share? According to the latest IRS data, the payment of income taxes is as follows.

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

The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes. About 1.7 million Americans, less than 1 percent of our population, pay 70.6 percent of federal income taxes. Is that fair, or do you think they should pay more? By the way, earning $500,000 a year doesn’t make one rich. It’s not even yacht money.

But the fairness question goes further. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $39,275 or less, pay 2.83 percent of federal income taxes. Thirty-seven million tax filers have no tax obligation at all. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 45.5 percent of households will not pay federal income tax this year.

There’s a severe political problem of so many Americans not having any skin in the game. These Americans become natural constituencies for big-spending politicians. After all, if you don’t pay federal taxes, what do you care about big spending? Also, if you don’t pay federal taxes, why should you be happy about a tax cut? What’s in it for you? In fact, you might see tax cuts as threatening your handout programs.

Our nation has a 38.91 percent tax on corporate earnings, the fourth-highest in the world. The House of Representatives has proposed that it be cut to 20 percent—some members of Congress call for a 15 percent rate. The nation’s political hustlers object, saying corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. The fact of the matter—which even leftist economists understand, though they might not publicly admit it—is corporations do not pay taxes.

An important subject area in economics is called tax incidence. It holds that the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear its full burden. Some of it can be shifted to another party.
If a tax is levied on a corporation, it will have one of four responses or some combination thereof. It will raise the price of its product, lower dividends, cut salaries, or lay off workers. In each case, a flesh-and-blood person bears the tax burden.

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

Politicians love to trick people by suggesting that they will impose taxes not on them but on some other entity instead. We can personalize the trick by talking about property taxes. Imagine that you are a homeowner and a politician tells you he is not going to tax you. Instead, he’s going to tax your property and land. You would easily see the political chicanery. Land and property cannot and do not pay taxes. Again, only people pay taxes. The same principle applies to corporations.

There’s another side to taxes that goes completely unappreciated. According to a 2013 study by the Virginia-based Mercatus Center, Americans spend up to $378 billion annually in tax-related accounting costs, and in 2011, Americans spent more than 6 billion hours complying with the tax code. Those hours are equivalent to the annual hours of a workforce of 3.4 million, or the number of people employed by four of the largest U.S. companies—Wal-Mart, IBM, McDonald’s, and Target—combined.

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

Trump's Immigration Policy Chief : Enforcing The Law(Video)

The bottom line here is just where is the starting point to end illegal immigration. That point is enforcing the law as it's written. Just imagine if everyone decided that they have the power to do what ever they want just because what they believe is right and the law is wrong. 

One of the best illustrations of this is and are sanctuary cities and now California is a sanctuary state, both are illegal under federal the law. What's next? The courts are no longer necessary? If the law is not legitimate then life as we know it is over.

We are a country of laws. The Constitution is the law of the land, and if you find that to distressing, then look to some other country for peace of mind and body and move there.

Trump’s Hard Line on Border ‘Takes Handcuffs Off’ Law Enforcement, Immigration Chief Says
Rachel del Guidice / /    

Enforcing laws already on the books helps significantly to fix the illegal immigration crisis, the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Tuesday. “If we keep sending this message, ‘It’s OK to violate the laws of this country and … not be worried about enforcement,’ then we’re never going to solve the border crisis,” ICE’s Thomas Homan said in a speech at The Heritage Foundation. “It’s never going to be solved as long as people think they get a free pass,” Homan said.
Homan became acting director of ICE on Jan. 30, 10 days after President Donald Trump took office.

“I get asked all the time, ‘Why do you arrest somebody that has been here for 10 years, for 15 years in the USA and has kids?,’” Homan said, reinforcing his point. “Why? Because if we don’t, we continue to send the message [that] ‘You are exempt from federal law.’ If that is the message we want to send, you are never going to solve the border crisis.”  Homan credited Trump with the success the agency has seen in confronting illegal immigration.  “We have already made great progress on the border issue [with] this president,” Homan said, adding:
His policy, whether you like the president or not, whether you like his policy or not, you can’t argue with the results [of] what’s going on on the border right now. Why? Because we are enforcing the rule of law and we are communicating a strong message that nothing is off the table.
This includes the president’s executive orders on border security and immigration enforcement. One order withheld certain funding from sanctuary cities, those jurisdictions that do not comply with U.S. immigration law. Trump also directed the hiring of “10,000 additional immigration officers” and set in motion plans for a border wall, as The Daily Signal previously reported.

The New York Times reported Oct. 12 that apprehensions of unlawful border-crossers declined by 40 percent from the same month last year. The Washington Times reported in May that illegal border crossings had declined by 76 percent.  “This president signed a series of executive orders, a lot of papers, a lot of words, a lot of sentences, but he could have done the executive orders in one sentence: ‘ICE will now enforce the laws enacted by Congress and on the books,’” Homan said.

Not enforcing the law is a waste of resources as well as a security risk, the acting ICE director said.
“This country spends billions of dollars a year on border security, detention, immigration courts, attorneys, appeals courts, circuit courts, and at the end, a judge issues a final order [immigration officials] need to execute, because if they are not, there is absolutely no integrity to this entire system. Might as well just open the border,” Homan said.

But he said he is used to pushback.  “I have had long [conversations] where people say, ‘Why are you so heartless?’”  Homan said his personal experience working in law enforcement for almost 30 years has made him see the vitalness of adhering to the law.  “I was at headquarters … when I got a phone call to get on a plane and go immediately to Victoria, Texas, to lead the investigation of 19 dead aliens in the back of a tractor-trailer,” he said, adding:
I immediately got on a plane and went down there. The crime scene was kept secure until I got there. I actually walked into the back of that tractor-trailer and was surrounded by 19 dead aliens. … They suffocated in the back of the tractor-trailer, one a 5-year-old boy. That haunts me to this day, because I had a 5-year-old boy at the time.
Illegal immigration is dangerous both for American citizens and the illegal immigrants themselves, Homan said, and that’s why he wants reform.  “The aliens-smuggling organization didn’t care about them,” he said of the 19 dead border-crossers. “So when people say that I am cold and I am heartless, you have not seen what I have seen. We got to stop, we got to end this stuff. This president has taken [it] seriously.”  Here is the video for the entire event:

Friday, October 20, 2017

NFL Okays Disrespect For America : But Disapproves of Christians and Police!

This all sounds familiar somehow but I'm not sure if these items are fact or not, but some are true like the Cowboy wanting to wear stickers on there helmets in support of the slain police officers, everything about Tim Tebow knelling to pray, but where denied by the NFL as unprofessional and against the rules.

So now why does the NFL decide that  players showing disrespect for the fans that honor the flag and country by watching these players take a knee for the National Anthem, the flag and the country?  

So it's to hell with being a Christian, and to hell with the police, and to hell with the country. Hey NFL, what's next for the players that the fans and citizens love and show respect for in this of great country, that they can cast into the sewage hole of history. Mom and apple pie? Probably as this is American all the way ands we know everyone hates America.

Believe me, this will not turn out well for the NFL.

NFL Makes A Distinction Between What Matters and What Doesn't

In 2012 the NFL had an issue with Tim Tebow kneeling for each game to pray, they also had an issue with Tebow wearing John 3:16 as part of his blackout to avoid glare and made him take it off.

In 2013 the NFL fined Brandon Marshall for wearing green cleats to raise awareness for
people with mental health disorders.

In 2014 Robert Griffin III (RG3) entered a post-game press conference wearing a shirt that said "KnowJesus Know Peace" but was forced to turn it inside out by an NFL uniform inspector
before speaking at the podium.

In 2015 DeAngelo Williams was fined for wearing "Find he Cure" eye black for breast cancer awareness.

In 2015 William Gay was fined for wearing purple cleats to raise awareness for domestic
violence. (not that the NFL has a domestic violence problem...)

In 2016 the NFL prevented the Dallas Cowboys from wearing a decal on their helmet in
honor of 5 Dallas police officers killed in the line of duty.

In 2016 the NFL threatened to fine players who wanted to wear cleats to commemorate the
15th anniversary of 9/11.

So tell me again how the NFL supports free speech and expression all of a sudden....

Palin's "Death Panel" to Be Scraped : Why Not OgbjmaCare As Well?

Sarah Palin is and was right, ''death panels'' are a reality in OgbjmaCare. And getting rid it is a good thing, but while they are at it they should go to the conclusion of what most Americans know and believe, even though many Republicans and all democrats don't, OgbjmaCare must be ended and replaced with common sense health care.

But it seems when it comes to making the hard decisions on promises they made while running for office, it appears that it was all for show, especially for so many Republicans. It's shame when their time to stand and deliver, they find it easier to take the money and run.

This Unelected Board Would Have Put Seniors’ Health Care at Risk. Now, It’s on the Chopping Block.
Jean Morrow / / Robert Moffit /    

Finding bipartisan agreement on any issue today is rare, and on health reform, essentially nonexistent. So what’s getting both Democrats and Republicans on the same wavelength?

Four words: Independent Payment Advisory Board.

This board, also known as IPAB, doesn’t quite exist yet. Under Obamacare, it was meant to be a powerful bureaucratic body of 15 unelected officials appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Its job? Recommend ways to cut spending on Medicare—the program that provides health care to millions of American seniors. Specifically, it would have to recommend cuts in order to meet Obamacare’s budget targets, but without doing any harm to seniors. A tough task.

But while it was supposed to issue its first order recommendation in 2014, the board hasn’t even been assembled yet. President Barack Obama never appointed members to sit on the board, and President Donald Trump hasn’t appointed any either. But the board continues to exist on the books of Obamacare, and that’s of concern to Republicans—and, it seems, some Democrats.

Reps. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., and Raul Ruiz, D-Calif., have introduced a bill that would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and recently, the House Ways and Means Committee approved it. The bill has support from 43 Democrats and 221 Republicans.

The bipartisan concern is that Medicare policy should not be left to 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. Health policy analysts have long warned about these dangers, and members of both parties are responding. To be clear, the board’s powers under Obamacare would be constrained. The board cannot make changes to cost-sharing rules, payment models, benefit offerings, or any structural reforms to the Medicare program. Its job is simply to make recommended spending cuts.

But turning this task over to 15 bureaucrats who can make arbitrary decisions about payment cuts to different medical treatments and procedures is unwise. That kind of concentrated power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats is just too much for a free society. Moreover, the board would not be able to accomplish the kinds of deep structural reforms that Medicare needs. That is a job for Congress.

Medicare is a 50-year-old program that needs real reform, and that means having a heavy dose of market competition injected into it. It is these reforms, not arbitrary spending cuts from the Independent Payment Advisory Board, that will get Medicare costs under control.

Spending cuts from the board could also be counterproductive for seniors. They could actually jeopardize seniors’ access to care, and, as Heritage Foundation analysts and others have argued, push even more physicians out of the program.

After repealing the board, Congress should get to work on Medicare reform at the structural level.
The best course is to move to a flexible, market-driven premium support model. This would put patients in the driver’s seat, allowing them to choose the plan that best meets their needs, whether that be the traditional Medicare plan, an employer plan, or a private health plan. Here, just as with the Medicare prescription drug program, the government would help cover the cost of a plan that the Medicare beneficiary chooses.

Real Medicare reform would empower patients, not bureaucrats. It would not only protect seniors’ access to quality care, but also expand personal choice and foster intense competition among Medicare plans and providers. That’s the right way to control costs.

This is all achievable. Once the Independent Payment Advisory Board has been scrapped, the road to Medicare reform will be wide open. Congress should take the next steps in getting rid of the board—and we should all take heart that for once, bipartisan action is working.

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Voter Fraud : Progressive democrats Success Story

Little wonder the progressive socialist liberal democrats fight tooth and nail to end voter ID as this will bring legitimacy to the system. And the democrats know without voter fraud they will have a hard time winning elections. They always have relied on fraud as a means to get what they want. Only it's now with the advent of technology it's becoming much harder to steal votes. Still they find a way.

And what is ironic here, the democrats are all upset about the Russians stealing the elections in our country, but it's actually the democrats that are stealing elections. I guess the democrats are angry that they believe the Russians have beat them at their own game. But that's nonsense. Nobody can beat the democrats at stealing.

More proof, again I have used this illustration be before but it's good one, and that's the election of Al Franken in Minnesota. It wasn't just fraud, it was criminal. John Fund's book, ''Who's Counting'' is epic!

More Cases of Voter Fraud Pile Up as Liberals Look the Other Way
Jason Snead / /

The Heritage Foundation added another round of cases this week to its ever-growing Voter Fraud Database. Accounting for these new additions, the database now documents 1,088 proven instances of election fraud, including 949 cases that have resulted in criminal convictions, 48 that have ended in civil penalties, and 75 that have seen defendants enter diversion programs.

Americans should be alarmed, not only because Heritage has compiled so many examples of fraud—impacting nearly every state and elections for all levels of government—but because this figure is likely just the tip of the iceberg. The Heritage database is not a comprehensive tally of election fraud. That figure would almost certainly be substantially larger.

Most states, after all, lack the robust procedures needed to detect fraud when it occurs. Even when fraud is detected, prosecutors often opt not to pursue cases because their priorities lie elsewhere.
Put simply, American elections are vulnerable and fraudsters know it. Not content to leave their ideological causes or their own careers up to the unpredictable will of voters, many fraudsters choose to act on this knowledge.

Here are two examples from the 2016 election, added in this week’s update:
1. Gladys Coego
Gladys Coego was a temporary worker in the Miami-Dade County Elections Department during the November election. She had been hired to open mail-in ballots, but she decided to go a step further: She deliberately altered these ballots to steer more votes toward Republican mayoral candidate Raquel Regalado.
Fortunately, Coego’s fraud did not alter the outcome of the election. She pleaded guilty to tampering with ballots and was sentenced to two years of house arrest.
2. Toni Lee Newbill
Toni Lee Newbill, a resident of Colorado, cast two ballots in the name of her deceased father, one in the 2013 general election and another in the 2016 Republican primary. She pleaded guilty and was given 18 months of probation and ordered to complete 30 hours of community service, as well as pay a $500 fine.

Consider the consequences of the actions of these two individuals. Newbill used her late father’s name to double her influence as a voter, and in the process she canceled out the lawful vote of someone else. Coego took advantage of her position to literally replace the opinions of voters with her own.

Both Coego and Newbill effectively disenfranchised their fellow voters in pursuit of their own aims.
Now, these cases join more than 1,000 others in the Heritage database, which documents all manner of fraud from vote-buying conspiracies to corrupt politicians rigging elections, to illegal voting by aliens and felons.

These cases constitute incontrovertible evidence of election fraud—which is perhaps why the Heritage database has found itself in the crosshairs of the left. After years of insisting that fraud is a myth perpetrated by vote suppressors, inconvenient contrary evidence is the last thing some want to see.

Last month, the Brennan Center for Justice released a report purporting to explain away virtually every case of fraud in the database. But the Brennan Center appears to have confused obfuscation with analysis. Any reasonable and fair-minded reader would have difficulty concluding that its mischaracterizations and inaccuracies regarding the Heritage database were anything less than a deliberate attempt to mislead the public on the issue.

What is it that anti-election integrity activists fear?

Voter identification laws have been shown time and again not to suppress voter turnout. In fact, minority voter turnout has been shown to actually improve in many states after they adopt a voter ID law. Claims that such laws discriminate and disenfranchise voters have been similarly debunked.

Justice Department attorneys challenging voter ID laws in Texas and North Carolina could locate nobody who was unable to vote on account of these laws. At the same time, evidence continues to mount that serious vulnerabilities in our election system are permitting noncitizens to illegally register and cast ballots in American elections. The Heritage database also documents many cases where convicted felons have illegally voted.

Asking for proof of identification at the ballot box—a precaution deemed necessary when buying alcohol or boarding an airplane—hardly seems inappropriate. Nor does it seem outlandish for states to routinely inspect their voter rolls to detect and purge inaccurate and out-of-date registrations, a requirement under the National Voter Registration Act intended to cut down on the possibility that someone—like Newbill, for example—can vote in the name of deceased individuals, or vote twice in multiple states.

One recent report concluded with “high confidence” that 45,000 duplicate votes were cast in the 2016 election. Somehow, innocuous measures like these seem to inflame liberal activists.

In New Hampshire, for example, efforts to require voters to demonstrate they had established a domicile in the state when registering to vote prompted outrage. The New Hampshire Democratic Party accused supporters of instituting a “literacy test.” At least one Democrat did endorse the measure, however: Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who noted that citizens deserve an electoral process they can trust. Kudos to him.

Gardner is exactly right. Election fraud is a serious issue that undermines public trust and confidence in the political process. In tight elections, even a small number of fraudulent ballots—sometimes even a single illegal vote—can swing the outcome and override the will of voters.

We, as a nation, should not willfully blind ourselves to this threat to the core of our democracy.
As The Heritage Foundation’s Voter Fraud Database proves, America has a problem, and it’s time to take the steps necessary to solve it.

Mississippi School VP Trashes Book : "To Kill A Mocking Bird" Is To Scary

Reality of life must be denied 8th graders.

Insanity by any other name is still insanity. The nannie state of mind in our country is lurid and immoral in it's intent to cloister the youth in ignorance and then demand they be adults later in a civil society. And when the adult fails it has to be some other reason for their failure to meet the demands of society.

The question that I have is were did this vice principle, that has decided this book is too scary for 8th graders, get his education, and what exactly does he believe is right and proper material to place in the hands of the young as educational tools for growth?

And I believe he is not alone  on the insistence of controlling outcomes in our educational system nation wide. The system is infested with progressive socialist liberals that believe it is their personal duty to actively direct the education of the young in their pathologically unethical liberal ideology.

I read this book in junior high and then watched the movie later and found it to be one of the best movies I have ever seen. The book was even better of course.

The question then is how long can we hold the hand of the young before the young can't let go?

Why Pulling ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ From the Classroom Hurts Students 
Daniel Davis / /    

This year, as in years past, eighth-graders in Biloxi, Mississippi, began reading the classic American novel “To Kill a Mockingbird.” And then, partway through and with little warning, they stopped. Why? Because, according to the school board vice president, it “makes people uncomfortable.”

If you attended American schools within the last few decades, chances are you read Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird.” It is a staple of American literature and a world-renowned classic, having sold 40 million copies since its first publication in 1960. It also won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 1961, and the book’s dramatic on-screen portrayal in 1962 cemented its fame.

America has overwhelmingly embraced “To Kill a Mockingbird,” so its sudden rejection in Biloxi, Mississippi, is noteworthy. And yet, in our day of hypersensitivity and student coddling, it’s hard to be completely shocked at this.

The concern that drove the school board’s decision is clear: “To Kill a Mockingbird” contains some content that is shocking and will indeed make some students uneasy. Of course, this is by design. Set in 1930s Alabama, the book is replete with use of the n-word and other racial epithets. The entire culture portrayed in the book is marked by prejudice toward African-Americans, with the exception of the main protagonists.

Since the book is a social commentary on racism in the Jim Crow South, this is to be expected.
Yet this is what administrators in Biloxi want to shield their students from. “[We] can teach the same lesson with other books,” Kenny Holloway, the school board’s vice president, told the Sun Herald, a Mississippi newspaper. “It’s still in our library. But they’re going to use another book in the eighth-grade course.”

Having read this book aloud with my own fellow students back in the ninth grade—bleeping out the n-word all the way through—I get the dilemma. This book is not for the fainthearted. Certain characters openly demean the dignity of African-Americans. Evil is put on full display. But that is exactly the point, and it’s what the Biloxi school board fails to grasp.

There is grave injustice in our world. And in order to confront those things as citizens, young people must be morally well-formed. They need to learn what evil is, and then be shaped into the kinds of people who can live out virtue for the betterment of society.

This does not come naturally for us. Human beings are born ignorant, narrow, and morally incompetent. The whole purpose of education is to move young people out of their infantile state into moral and intellectual maturity. It’s a process of liberation. But students will never reach the point of liberation if their teachers shield them from evil.

Part of moral maturity is being able to stare evil in the face, to look on it with mourning, and to respond by doing what is right—even at great personal cost. That’s the kind of maturity embodied by Atticus Finch, a main protagonist in “To Kill a Mockingbird.” This man stared evil in the face and, at great cost to himself, made a stand for justice. If our students can’t even read lines from “To Kill a Mockingbird,” how do we expect them to grow up into the kinds of Atticus Finches we want serving our society?

The great irony is that in shielding their students from “uncomfortable” things, school administrators are not actually protecting them. They are consigning them to lives of moral weakness and mediocrity, and doing a disservice to society as a whole. The other irony, of course, is that “To Kill a Mockingbird,” with its “uncomfortable” language, was a tremendous force for good in the 20th century. It played a role in moving public opinion toward the cause of civil rights.

A similar dynamic played out with “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” which contained even more severe scenes of brutality against blacks. That book helped fuel the abolitionist movement in the 1850s. Were the readers of these books scandalized? Were their consciences marred beyond repair? Would they have been better off sticking to more polite literature?

If America is a better place today because of abolition and the civil rights movement, then we should rejoice that these books were widely read. And heaven forbid we should see ourselves as somehow above them.

The task of education is the task of citizen-making, and in an important sense, soul-making. If we want to mold students into citizens who are morally competent, then we must lead them out of infancy by helping them grow thick skin and large souls. Sometimes, that just means making them “uncomfortable.”

The Deep State,The Shadow Government : Where Is Trump?

This is why we voted for Trump. Corruption by any other name.

Where do we turn now? It's true that the President has a lot on his plate with tax reform and replace and repeal of OgbjmaCare.

But still, at least he could task some people to make recommendation in the short term, and get some legislation going to change the laws of how the ''deep state'' can be drained of the socially criminally biased employees that actively worked against the voters for their own purposes.

It's the people in the trenches that matter as they are the ones that pay the bills.

Why Trump’s Not Replacing Bureaucrats Enables the ‘Deep State’ 
Jarrett Stepman / /    

Hillary Clinton is urging federal workers to stay in their jobs so they can fight for progressive policies again. On her book tour, the former secretary of state and presidential candidate told government workers to “stick it out, stick it out, because the tide has to turn.”

“If [Democrats] can take back one or both houses of Congress in 2018, you will have people you can talk to again,” Clinton said. When Donald Trump was elected president, he promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington and return power to the American people. There is no muddier water to dredge than the mostly unaccountable administrative state.

Over the course of a century, the federal bureaucracy has become large, calcified, and unmanageable. It now carries enormous weight in crafting, implementing, and adjudicating policies that affect all of us. For instance, the Health and Human Services Obamacare mandate, the transgender school bathroom policy, and numerous other rules and regulations under various departments have been created and carried out by the administrative state. It has become enormously powerful.

Worse, laws designed to ensure that the bureaucracy would be staffed with “nonpartisan” experts have had the unintended consequence of instead sealing numerous incompetents into a job for life. And many of these bureaucrats are hopelessly partisan, wedded to the ideas of big government and progressive reform for reasons of both ideology and personal interest.

According to The Hill, about 95 percent of political donations from federal employees went to Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. One would think that those numbers would have changed in the nine months that Trump has been president. They haven’t.

A recent review of select federal agencies revealed that contributions from employees overwhelmingly have gone to Democrats in the 2018 election cycle, according to The Washington Free Beacon. So much for the stories about bureaucrats quitting their jobs en masse if Trump got elected. And it’s clear that a huge percentage of these civil service employees are hostile to the Trump administration’s agenda.

The Danger of Unaccountable Bureaucrats
While there are certainly many individuals in government who do good work and take their job seriously, there are others who have continually let down the American people, or worse, actively attempt to impede the policies of democratically elected leaders. Unfortunately, Trump has sometimes equated leaving posts unfilled with shrinking the size of government.

“I’m generally not going to make a lot of the appointments that would normally be—because you don’t need them,” Trump said in a Forbes interview. “I mean, you look at some of these agencies, how massive they are, and it’s totally unnecessary. They have hundreds of thousands of people.”
He’s also tweeted about this issue.

“Every day, career bureaucrats are issuing decisions on guidelines and making interpretations of regulations,” Robert Moffit, a former Office of Personnel Management assistant director who is a senior health policy analyst for The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “We need management there to take the bull by the horns.”

The problem is that the few top-level appointments he’d have direct control over are just a tiny drop in the bucket of the federal workforce. But without these executive appointees, agencies are left entirely to their own devices without any kind of political direction.

The “permanent state,” as former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka has called it, is comprised of nearly 3 million federal employees, most of whom essentially can’t be fired by law (more on that later).
And they have certainly found ways to cause problems from the get-go in the Trump administration, such as subversively leaking information to the press, blasting the president on Twitter, and refusing to implement the administration’s immigration policies.

Former employees of the Environmental Protection Agency even created a memo, “A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump De-Regulatory Agenda,” which essentially explains to current EPA employees how to resist the administration’s policy priorities.

The bureaucracy, the so-called “fourth branch of government,” now possesses legislative, executive, and judicial powers never dreamed of by the Founders, which has dealt a blow to the idea of checks and balances in government. Letting agencies operate on their own with permanent civil service employees and Obama holdovers means that they are free to carry out the previous administration’s agenda virtually unimpeded.

How Did We Get Here?
At one time, the president had far greater power in selecting who worked for him. Initially, federal workers served more or less on an “at will” basis, meaning they could be fired for any reason, though presidents generally kept the limited number of civil servants in place from administration to administration.

Though some presidents were hesitant to fire civil servants for any reason, others were more aggressive in turning out bureaucrats who became problematic, complacent, or generally ineffective.
President Andrew Jackson perhaps most famously warred with federal bureaucrats and was accused of implementing a “spoils system” whereby removals and appointments were made on a purely partisan basis.

As I explained in a paper I co-authored for the American Legislative Exchange Council, many of the attacks on Jackson’s record were distortions or simply untrue. Nevertheless, Jackson articulated a philosophy on government that should resonate with those frustrated with Washington today.
Jackson believed that “rotation in office” was essential to free government, and that it applied to federal workers. He believed he had to fire a few government employees to better serve the people.

While Jackson and others often used the system of rotation for good, there were undoubtedly abuses that took place over the years in which unqualified people got a job in government simply because of party affiliation. So civil service reformers, particularly the progressives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, passed a series of laws that made federal hiring based more on tests, while increasingly restricting the ability to fire or remove those employees. They dreamed that the fast-growing administrative state would be staffed by able, nonpartisan experts. Today, nearly all federal employees are protected by civil service laws, except for those in the top-level political posts.

Changes Need to Be Made
Winston Churchill supposedly  once quipped that “after a time, civil servants tend to become no longer servants and no longer civil.”

Our laws now make it nearly impossible to fire a federal employee for almost any reason—including criminal behavior. And the process to fire someone is so onerous that few are willing to carry it out.
The result has been that we have a civil service that is neither affected by elections, nor nonpartisan, nor guaranteed to be staffed by experts.

It’s a mess. If Trump is serious about making his populist, “Jacksonian” message work in the nation’s capital, he’s going to have to do more to curtail the relentless power of the administrative state.
Trump has been slow at even dealing with the “shallow” state of political appointments that he has more immediate control over. He needs to make this a more pressing issue, or the swamp creatures will swallow up his administration.

Though Trump took an important step in nominating an Office of Personnel Management director, who is tasked with managing the federal workforce, more can be done.
 The Trump Nominee Poised to Be Point Man on Draining Government Swamp

Some states, like Georgia, have already innovated with policies that put employment for government workers on an “at will” basis. There have already been similar reforms of Veterans Affairs, but legislation is needed to apply these ideas to other departments.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., has introduced a proposal that would significantly reduce the wait time for removing bad federal employees, which can take over 300 days. Curtailing the power of the administrative state can’t be done with the snap of a finger, but it is an issue Trump and Congress must address—not just for the sake of this presidency, but for the sake of our constitutional republic.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

College Prof Under Attack At Boise : Free Speech? It's Hate Speech

The movement among the mindless students and faculty is one of a weakness to understand how they are being used and abused by outside forces. Still it is very revealing just how mind altered that so many 'students' are and how they became that way.

The only saving hope is that in realty the vast majority of students do not hold the view free speech is lost, they for the most part are silent just to avoid the lunatics that have the spot light in the media. The majority just want to get an education and move on to starting a life outside of the university.

Sadly, that education that the majority is looking for at Boise is tainted or destroyed by domestic terrorists that rampaging on campus with their sewage of mental babble that the media pours out as legitimate discourse.

This College Professor Is Under Siege for Challenging Transgender Orthodoxy
Jarrett Stepman / /    

A Boise State University professor recently learned what happens when you challenge left-wing social narratives on college campuses. Scott Yenor, a tenured professor, has been under siege on campus after publishing articles with The Heritage Foundation and The Daily Signal about feminism and the transgender movement.

In those articles, Yenor explained the similarity in philosophy between the early feminists and modern transgender movement and how they aim at undermining traditional family values.
He wrote in a Daily Signal article on Aug. 2:

[Transgender rights activists are seeking to abridge parental rights by elevating the independent choices of young children. Respecting the sexual and gender “choices” of ever-younger children erodes parental rights and compromises the integrity of the family as an independent unit.]

In response, students, activists, and even staff members at Boise State are now waging a relentless campaign to get Yenor fired or shut down. A petition to have Yenor fired—which has now gained thousands of signatures—has been passed around on campus. Activists have posted flyers attacking him, and some have called for other faculty to come out and officially condemn him.

Despite these calls, Boise State has said it will not fire Yenor, according to The College Fix.
That doesn’t mean it’s easy sailing for Yenor, who continues to be lambasted and isolated. In an interview with The Daily Signal, Yenor explained how the crusade against his work and others that challenge left-wing orthodoxy on campus is undercutting free speech at our colleges and universities.

The result of the reaction to his work, Yenor said, is that “there has been a very chilling effect on not only my speech, but those who would speak in defense of me both on the substance, and on the principle of academic freedom.”

The blowback came in earnest, according to Yenor, when the School of Public Service posted his article on its Facebook page. The dean received immediate negative reactions and anger from students and LGBT activists.

The dean, Corey Cook, then posted a statement on Facebook saying that while Yenor had a right to publish, his work violated the university’s aspirations of diversity and civility.

This didn’t stop the waves of attacks that would soon come upon Yenor. The campaign against him became a “cause célèbre” for the new student diversity and inclusion hire, Francisco Salinas, according to Yenor.

In August, Salinas wrote an article condemning Yenor and tying his work to the recent events in Charlottesville and to Nazism. And at an Aug. 29 faculty senate meeting, Boise State professor Lynn Lubamersky said that while she believes in free expression, she thinks that because of the opinions expressed in The Daily Signal article, Yenor “violated clear policies that govern our institution, our statement of shared values, and the State Board of Education policy regarding academic freedom and most important, our concern for our students.”

“The majority of our university is made up of women and transgendered people,” Lubamersky continued. “[Yenor’s] public statements published with the byline: Boise State University (BSU) professor of political science, a real violation of the rights of women and transgendered students.”
Lubamersky said:
When someone expresses bigoted, homophobic, and misogynistic views as a representative of a university, I think that we do have the right and responsibility to at least make a statement that we do not share these values and they are not represented of our university.
Since Yenor published the Daily Signal article in August, he received a constant stream of criticism and calls for his work to be shut down. “The position seems to be that anyone who would do research in areas that don’t affirm the contemporary views, should be shut down,” Yenor said. Boise State student Ryan Orlando called for his school to “part ways” with Yenor in an article he penned for The Odyssey.

“There are a multitude of morally reprehensible notions in Yenor’s writing which constitute a dangerous ideology that warrants separation from the university,” Orlando wrote. “In our belief, this is hate speech, and it’s alienating a lot of folks in this Boise State community,” said Joe Goode, a member of the Boise State Young Democrats, according to KTVB. “We want to show that our university stands for more than hate, we are a community of equality and inclusivity.”

While he has received withering personal attacks over his research, Yenor said that few have engaged with the ideas or have seriously attempted to refute his arguments. Yenor said the personal attacks don’t bother him, but he worries about the long-term impact on people worried that their views will not be argued with, but simply attacked on campus. “That’s been one of the most disappointing things,” Yenor said. “Everyone in academia could live with having a debate about ideas, but a debate has to start with an understanding what the other person is arguing.”

“It strikes me that there has really been, first of all, no effort to first understand what I’m arguing, and second of all, to get anywhere beyond name-calling and labeling,” Yenor said. Yenor said only a handful of students have come out to publicly defend him or even make the simple argument that he should be allowed to speak on his views without getting fired, though he has received a lot of private support. Yenor said he’s made new friendships, especially among those who privately share his views or actually want to understand what he has to say.

Nevertheless, he said he now feels like an “alien” on campus. “There’s a kind of feeling that there’s a mob,” Yenor said. “And you don’t run across a mob.” What’s been worst about all the flak he’s received on campus, according to Yenor, is this larger impact on speech.

While Yenor said he will not back down about writing about gender and other areas that he studies, he is worried about what the attacks mean for free speech and others who are afraid to have their careers derailed. “The problem with what is happening is that the idea that I’m in violation of the campus civility policies is intended to have a chilling effect on my speech and the speech of anyone who would agree with me,” Yenor said. “That is the bottom line with how I’m being injured.”
This, according to Yenor, will damage institutions of higher learning.

“What is primarily at stake in my case, I think, is the development of a culture of victimization on campus or a social justice framework for understanding education,” Yenor said in a follow-up email.

The article has been corrected to reflect that the quotes from the Aug. 29 faculty meeting were from Professor Lynn Lubamersky.

California Fires A Government Problem? : Forest Service Compromised

Isn't it amazing that the god of government is found to be the problem in forest management. Goodness! Who Knew? And Barak and the progressive socialists want to have ''single payer'' health care? Government run health care?

Environmentalist Policies Are Exacerbating Wildfires. It’s Time to Rethink Forest Management.
Jarrett Stepman / /

Massive wildfires continue to rage out of control in Northern California, causing historic loss of life and billions of dollars in damage. The images coming out of California towns, which look like bombed-out cities from World War II, are a sobering reminder of man’s occasional futility in the face of nature unleashed.
 23 Photos of the Wildfires Burning Through California

Stopping these huge blazes is, of course, a priority. The firefighters who have been battling these infernos have at times done a miraculous job under extremely difficult circumstances.

However, policymakers should also look at ways to curtail the long-term trend of growing numbers of major wildfires. While some argue that climate change is to blame for the uptick in fires, it’s also worth grappling with the drastic alterations in forest management that have occurred over the last four decades.

Many have argued that this is driving the surge in huge fires. As a Reason Foundation study noted, the U.S. Forest Service, which is tasked with managing public wildland, once had success in minimizing widespread fires in the early 20th century. But many of these successful methods were abandoned in large part because of efforts by environmental activists.

The Forest Service became more costly and less effective as it increasingly “rewarded forest managers for losing money on environmentally questionable practices,” wrote Randal O’Toole, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute. Spending on the Forest Service has risen drastically, but these additional resources have been misused and haven’t solved the underlying issues.

“Fire expenditures have grown from less than 15 percent of the Forest Service budget in [the] early 1990s to about 50 percent today. Forest Service fire expenditures have increased from less than $1 billion in the late 1990s to $3.5 billion in 2016,” O’Toole wrote. Perhaps now, Americans will begin to re-evaluate forest management policies.

In a May congressional hearing, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said, “Forty-five years ago, we began imposing laws that have made the management of our forests all but impossible.” He went on to say that federal authorities have done a poor job of implementing methods to reduce the number of deadly fires, and that this has been devastating for America’s wildlands.

“Time and again, we see vivid boundaries between the young, healthy, growing forests managed by state, local, and private landholders, and the choked, dying, or burned federal forests,” McClintock said. “The laws of the past 45 years have not only failed to protect the forest environment—they have done immeasurable harm to our forests.”

In a recent House address, McClintock pinned the blame of poor forest management on bad 1970s laws, like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. He said these laws “have resulted in endlessly time-consuming and cost-prohibitive restrictions and requirements that have made the scientific management of our forests virtually impossible.” Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has promoted a change to forest management policies, calling for a more aggressive approach to reduce the excess vegetation that has made the fires worse.

Congress is also moving to address the problem.

Members of the Western Caucus have proposed legislation to dramatically change the way forests are managed. If passed, this bill would give power back to local authorities and allow for more aggressive forest thinning without subjecting them to the most onerous of environmental reviews.
 House Lawmakers Push Legislation to ‘Stop the Spread of Catastrophic Wildfires’

While state and federal governments can take measures to enhance forest and wilderness management, private management can also get involved to improve conditions. One idea is to adopt a policy popularized by the school choice movement: create charter forests that are publicly owned, but privately managed. This would allow forest management to move away from top-down, bureaucratic control to a decentralized and varied system that may better conform with local realities.

As professor Robert H. Nelson wrote for The Wall Street Journal, the charter forest “would be exempt from current requirements for public land-use planning and the writing of environmental impact statements. These requirements long ago ceased to perform their ostensible function of improving public land decision making.” Similar privatizing efforts have succeeded in the past.

No measure can truly prevent all fires, but reasonable steps can be taken to reduce the incidence of huge blazes like the ones currently engulfing California. It’s time for lawmakers to redouble their efforts to protect American lives and property from nature’s most devastating ravages.

Australia To Vote On Gay Marriage : LGBT Against A Vote

No one would have ever thought that a fight would ensue for the ethical question of what the definition of marriage is. From the beginning of time itself, it has been between a man and a woman. How is it possible to understand it can be any other way.

The very existence of the human race depends on a selective coupling of a man and a woman.

There can't be a union of two same sex individuals to produce an offspring. And to believe that there is such a things as a 'sex neutral' child is fiction. There are males and females and each must have the interaction of both as adults for the child to become a functioning adult in a civil society.

LGBT Activists Wanted Elites, Not All, to Decide on Gay Marriage in Australia
Lyle Shelton / /    

After years of political wrangling over same-sex marriage, Australian voters are having their say in a national postal vote that ends on Nov. 7. The survey of all registered voters has the potential to resolve an issue that, thanks to the relentless lobbying of same-sex marriage activists, has been dominating the Australian political discourse for years. Activists, celebrities, and the media say Australia is behind the rest of the world and is becoming an embarrassment.

Australia’s conservative government, under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, promised no change to the Marriage Act unless the Australian people agreed by voting in a “plebiscite.”

In Australia, a plebiscite gauges public opinion on a particular issue. While not legally binding, the result of this plebiscite will guide Parliament in deciding whether to vote to change Australia’s marriage law. But a popular vote is exactly what the same-sex marriage lobby does not want.

Claiming young LGBT youth would commit suicide if a plebiscite were held, the Labor opposition led by Bill Shorten teamed up with cross-bench senators to block legislation last December that would have triggered a compulsory attendance plebiscite.

The aim of the same-sex marriage lobby was to force the government to break its election promise by instead holding a vote on the floor of Parliament, where the numbers are tight and same-sex marriage activists think they have their best chance of winning. After five rebel government members of Parliament threatened to cross the floor and vote with the opposition, the prime minister’s hand was forced.

He was able to circumvent the Senate blockade by using special powers that allowed the government to conduct a survey of voters by mail under the direction of the Australian Bureau of Statisti
Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten tried to prevent the issue of same-sex marriage from going to a popular vote.

Because the vote would be by post and noncompulsory—voting in Australia is normally mandatory—legislation would not be needed to conduct the plebiscite.

This novel approach for Australia, which seeks to avoid embarrassment for the government while still upholding its election promise, was challenged by the same-sex marriage lobby in the High Court. On Sept. 12, in a unanimous judgement, the court ruled that the mail survey was legal and the vote could proceed.

It is telling that the same-sex marriage lobby has done everything within its power to stop the Australian people from having a say. It claims to have polling support as high as 70 percent, but does not want the Australian people to express that support through a ballot.

After the High Court ruling affirmed the plebiscite, the Australian Bureau of Statistics began mailing out 16 million survey forms with reply-paid envelopes. Voters have until Nov. 7 to return them, and the result will be announced on Nov. 15.

The “Yes” campaign, which supports redefining marriage, is being led by Irish gay activist Tiernan Brady who led the successful Irish referendum campaign in 2015. The “No” campaign is led by the Coalition for Marriage, which is comprised of 80 organizations with leadership provided by the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, advocacy group Marriage Alliance, and the Australian Christian Lobby. Most of the media is campaigning for change, with the notable exceptions of Rupert Murdoch-owned newspapers and websites and Sky News television.

The Coalition for Marriage has focused its messaging on the impact of children being exposed to radical LGBT sex and gender education, a consequence of redefining marriage. The coalition’s television ads feature three mothers speaking of their experiences with a program called “Safe Schools.” “School told my son he could wear a dress,” Melbourne mother Cella White says in the ad.
“Where same-sex marriage passes as law overseas, [radical sex education] becomes widespread and compulsory,” Dr. Pansy Lai, a Chinese-Australian mother, says.

“Kids in Year 7 are being asked role-play being in a same-sex relationship,” Heidi McIvor says.
The Yes campaign went ballistic when this ad aired in August, accusing the mothers of lying and the Coalition for Marriage of wanting to talk about anything other than same-sex marriage. But the evidence from overseas and the experience of “safe schools” already evident in Australia are undeniable.

There are just too many same-sex marriage advocates on the record who draw a direct line between the degendering of marriage and gender fluidity programs in school. Last month, in chastising a Canberra Christian school for urging its school community to vote no, the Australian Capital Territory’s education minister, Yvette Berry, vindicated the Coalition for Marriage’s key claims by saying schools had no right to refuse to teach gender fluidity and same-sex sex education programs.

A follow-up Coalition for Marriage television ad featured Canadian father Steve Tourloukis saying that once same-sex marriage was legalized in Ontario, the courts said his children must be taught to celebrate homosexuality. The messaging is hitting a nerve with Australians. Also hitting a nerve is criticism that anti-discrimination law would be weaponized against freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

After assuring us that gay couples getting married will have no consequences for other Australians’ freedoms, even leading Yes campaigners are now grudgingly admitting that religious liberty protections are needed. However, they will concede no protections for anyone other than professional religious clergy, leaving a cloud of uncertainty for individuals, business owners, and Christian schools who wish to teach that marriage is exclusively man-woman. Yes supporters continue to prove that their campaign threatens the freedoms of dissenting Australians.

Just last month, a business owner sacked an 18-year-old for putting up a No campaign meme on her Facebook page. Some have called for a Roman Catholic archbishop to be fined for distributing a pastoral letter on man-woman marriage, and acts of violence have been committed against No campaigners at universities and against the Australian Christian Lobby.

Now that the debate has matured beyond “marriage equality” slogans and the Australian people are being confronted with the consequences of change, people are changing their votes but polls continue to show the Yes campaign in a commanding lead.

So far, 62.5 percent of Australians have returned a survey form—a high participation rate for a voluntary vote. If Australia can hold the line, a global fightback against totalitarian rainbow politics may be emboldened. We will know on Nov. 15.

Planned Parenthood Advocates Selective Abortion : Girl Babys Must Go

What is the world is happening? Selective abortions? Is this out of some nightmare Hollywood movie? No, of course not, it's just part of the progressive socialist ideology where the human being is subject to the god of government and the elite few that are at the controls. 

Worse, the majority of government officials that know better but are only to willing to capitulate to the debauchery of the progressives just to avoid taking a stand on principles of commons sense and morality. Taking stand on what is right and what is wrong is just to difficult.

And if anyone still wonder why so many voted for Donald Trump, wonder no longer.

Planned Parenthood Is Targeting Baby Girls in the Womb
Cathy Ruse / /

Planned Parenthood wants you to think it is the champion of women. But if it achieves its goals, there may not be very many women left to champion. Last year, Indiana passed a law that banned sex-selective abortion—the killing of unborn babies based on their sex. But last week, a federal district judge granted a permanent injunction against that law, at Planned Parenthood’s request.

The ruling gives abortionists in Indiana the legal right to kill girl babies just because they are girls.
The case is Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Commissioner of Indiana State Department of Health, but it could fairly be captioned: Planned Parenthood vs. Little Girls.

In the United States, only a handful of states have laws against sex-selective abortion. Planned Parenthood fights them wherever they appear. It goes without saying that it’s not the little boys whose lives are in peril from this abhorrent practice. It’s the little girls. This is borne out by social science data from all over the world.

Modern abortion politics has done strange things to our culture. Women and children are natural allies for feminists, but abortion politics has made them enemies. The first American feminists didn’t see it that way.

Susan B. Anthony, a leader in the women’s suffrage movement, denounced abortion. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, another early suffragist and an abolitionist, said, “When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” And yet treating children as property to be disposed of as we see fit has become the litmus test in today’s feminist movement.

When legislators in Arkansas enacted a ban on sex-selective abortions earlier this year, a prominent civil rights advocate blasted the measure as preventing women from “obtaining abortions that they want for whatever reason.” Planned Parenthood also attacked the measure, giving aid to the practice of keeping boy babies while discarding girl ones. And yet, women’s rights activists continue to allow Planned Parenthood to claim the mantle of feminism for itself.

In 1988, Kate Michelman, former head of the National Abortion Rights Action League, told The New York Times: “Abortion is the guarantor of a woman’s right to participate fully in the social and political life of society.”

What an utterly un-feminist sentiment. No woman should have to abort her child to participate fully in society. If a pregnant woman or mother can’t participate, then something’s wrong with society. Let’s change society. Isn’t that the truer feminist response?

Our politics have become so warped that the words “abortion” and “women’s rights” are often used synonymously. If you’re against abortion you’re called “anti-woman.” If you want to stop giving free tax dollars to abortionists then you’re “waging war on women.

Our legal system, too, has become so warped that abortionists are allowed to stand in the place of women in court, as if their interests are identical.

Justice Clarence Thomas spoke of this “jurisprudential oddity” in his dissent in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt last year: “Ordinarily, plaintiffs cannot file suits to vindicate the constitutional rights of others. But the Court employs a different approach to rights that it favors,” he said wryly. “The Court has erroneously allowed doctors and clinics to vicariously vindicate the putative constitutional right of women.”

Abortionists like Kermit Gosnell and Leroy Carhart sell abortions to women. One customer, Karnamaya Mongar, was dead hours after entering Gosnell’s squalid clinic. Surely his interests were never synonymous with hers.

The attorney general in Indiana has vowed to appeal the ruling and to defend the ban on sex-selective abortion. The nation’s abortion giant will of course keep fighting it.

The looming question for the feminist movement is: Will you stand against the selective elimination of women in the womb?