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.

Interaction Between Two People : Marriage Relationship Explained(Humor)

Smile - what a good way to start the day. A little married interaction is always a good thing. heh


I came home from the golf course today. The wife had left a note on the refrigerator:
 
"IT'S NOT WORKING, I can't take it anymore! Gone to stay with my mother." I opened the fridge, the light came on, and the beer was cold...
 
What the hell is she talking about?
 


Friday, December 15, 2017

Computer Test Show Unconscious Racism? : This Is Nonsense - Dangerous!

How easy it is to test for racial bias on a computer but how difficult to actually understand the human subconscious and what it portends in civil society when conditions arise to actually test a person reactions when they encounter different people of different races and conditions. 

There are so many different scenarios that predict a persons racial tendencies under so many different condition that will tell a different story each time because of those conditions under which the occur. But to predict a person reaction to racial encounters on computer is nonsense if not dangerous!

Where is the basic common sense here?

This Test Claims to Show Whether You’re Unconsciously Racist. Here Are Its Problems.
Elizabeth Slattery / /

Are you secretly a racist? Do you harbor prejudices deep within your subconscious? Could you be bigoted without even knowing it? These are highly charged accusations, but a team of social psychologists developed a test claiming to uncover such unconscious biases. Known as the Implicit Association Test, it measures bias based on how quickly test-takers respond to images and words that flash before them on a computer screen.

Proponents of the test claim the results signal “discriminatory behavior.” But does this test predict real-world behavior? And should lawmakers and decision-makers in academia and corporate America take steps to remedy these unconscious biases?

Here’s how the test works: Test-takers are instructed to press one key when a picture of a black person appears on the screen, and another key when there’s a picture of a white person. Then you do the same with positive and negative words (“magnificent,” “delightful,” “rotten,” “hurtful,” and so on).

You repeat this exercise, but with photos and words (so presumably, black people will be paired with negative words and white people with positive words). Then the test flips the race that is paired with the two types of words. The difference in your response times for associating one race with positive or negative words indicates whether you have a slight, moderate, or strong bias.

You can join the millions of people who have measured their bias, and take the test here. There are tests measuring several types of bias—based on race, sexuality, weight, and religion, among others.

Read more about the Implicit Association Test in this new Heritage Foundation Special Report.

For the record, I took the race test twice and got conflicting results. One time, it concluded that I have a “slight preference” for black people, and a second time, I got the opposite result with a slight preference for white people.

According to the test, my bias depends on whether or not I’ve had my afternoon coffee. My casual and highly unscientific foray into the world of unconscious bias shows the imprecise nature of the test.

While the test promises to identify biases, one of its original proponents, Brian Nosek, has admitted there’s “substantial risk for both falsely identifying people as eventual dis­criminators and failing to identify people who will discriminate.” Warnings like this, however, haven’t stopped the media, academia, and corporate America from jumping on the unconscious bias train.

The legal community is following suit. The American Bar Association now offers “Elimination of Bias” credits for some of its continuing legal education courses, and there have even been lawsuits based on claims of unconscious bias.

Writing in the Harvard Business Review, one of the test’s creators, Mahzarin Banaji, boldly claimed, “Most of us believe that we are ethical and unbiased. … But more than two decades of research confirms that, in reality, most of us fall woefully short of our inflated self-perception.”

She explained in a Washington Post interview, “The Implicit Association Test measures the thumbprint of the culture on our minds. … [I]t is picking up that aspect of the culture that has gotten into your brain and mind.” And apparently that culture is overwhelmingly anti-black: Data from the online test shows that 88 percent of white test-takers had a “pro-white or anti-black implicit bias.”

Putting aside the images of Orwellian thought police that this calls to mind, there’s a growing consensus among researchers that the Implicit Association Test falls woefully short.

Before it becomes further engrained in hiring, college admissions, law enforcement, banking, government contracting, and many other industries, policymakers and cultural leaders should consider the broader “social and political implications of this research,” as a new Heritage Foundation report argues.

Join us on Thursday at The Heritage Foundation for a public event on the Implicit Association Test.

While the intention behind the test—ensuring that everyone is treated fairly by seeking to root out racism—is a good one, statistician Althea Nagai explains, “[T]here is consensus on neither unconscious racism nor the [Implicit Association Test].”

Though the test’s proponents claim “[it] is to psychology what Galileo’s telescope was to the Copernican Revolution,” Nagai identifies several flaws—including the test’s unreliability, the lack of clarity about what it actually measures, its failure to predict real-world behavior, and the high rate of false positives.

Taken together, these flaws make the case that incorporating the test into public policy, the legal system, or ethics training in corporate America is not only ineffective, but may also exacerbate race relations.

Nagai explains:

False accusations of racism are highly likely, and true instances of racism lose their salience. The real difficulty is the public cynicism and indifference that results when accusations are made, new policies are implemented, and millions of dollars are spent on the problem—with little perceived progress.

She continues:

Although it has been hailed by the media as uncovering a dark, secret side of the American psyche, numerous critics of the [test] have demonstrated that it simply cannot predict how test-takers will act in the real world.

So while the media may enjoy running stories with gimmicky, sensational headlines like “Across America, Whites Are Biased and Don’t Even Know It,” “Is Everybody a Little Bit Racist?” and “You May Be More Racist Than You Think,” there’s mounting evidence that the Implicit Association Test is just that: a gimmick that can’t deliver what it promises.

New York Bomber A Chain Immigrant : Home Grown Terror

The question that remains is what triggers an individual to become radicalized? Who is most susceptible to the suggestion that killing is in the individuals best interest even when that individual is not being forced to do so by their immediate surroundings?

And the answer is for new arrivals is assimilation into our culture will make the difference? What are you talking about. What exactly is the number of people that make an effort to assimilate? Now many actually want to become American citizens? That's old school thinking. Now it's joining the clan and keeping your head down to just get by and survive.

Standing up and proclaiming that you want to shed the old Muslim life and join the new Muslim life here in America of freedom and equality is death sentence in many cases for you and your family.

Attempted New York Bombing Calls for Renewed Vigilance Against Homegrown Terrorism
David Inserra / /

The attempted suicide bombing by Akayed Ullah in New York on Monday is the 101st Islamist plot or attack against the U.S. homeland since 9/11. While the device did not succeed in causing the destruction that Ullah wished, the U.S. must redouble its commitment to stopping terrorists before they strike.

Ullah came to the U.S. from Bangladesh in 2011 on a family-based green card. According to authorities, he began radicalizing in 2014 and began researching bomb-making in the past year. Ullah watched various pro-Islamic State materials during this time.

Before the attack, he made several social media posts, including the statement, “[President Donald] Trump you failed to protect your nation,” and another indicating the attack was in the name of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

Ullah attached his homemade pipe bomb to his person and entered the New York Port Authority Bus Terminal on Monday morning and exploded the device. Thankfully, it did not cause serious injury to commuters. Ullah was then taken to the hospital with burn injuries around his abdomen. When interviewed, Ullah claimed that he “did it for the Islamic State” and that he had attacked the terminal on a weekday to maximize casualties and terror.

This attack is the 23rd Islamist plot or attack since 9/11 to target New York City, the most targeted city by far. It is also the 12th attack or plot targeting mass transit systems. While it thankfully was not deadly, it is the 17th Islamist attack to be completed out of 101 plots. It is the sixth plot of 2017.

This plot also continues the trend of terror plots that are homegrown—that is, carried out by terrorists who radicalized in the U.S. This attack is the 89th plot or attack that was entirely or largely homegrown in nature. It speaks to the importance of assimilating immigrants into American society once they arrive here.

The government should not be dividing Americans into various identity groups, but should instead seek to affirm the “e pluribus unum” character of the nation.

This case also calls for continued improvements to our intelligence programs and agencies. The FBI must continue to improve the way it shares information with state and local partners, especially given the growth of terror investigations during the past several years. Policymakers must also ensure that intelligence and law enforcement agencies have access to the intelligence they need to foil terror plots.

This includes reauthorizing the FISA 701 program in its entirety. Putting up walls between various agencies such as by adding additional warrant requirements for information that has already been lawfully collected will weaken the United States’ ability to find and stop terrorists.

The attack on the New York Port Authority terminal is a reminder that while ISIS is being driven from its strongholds in the Middle East, its followers and sympathizers, and those of other Islamist terror groups, remain dedicated to striking the U.S. homeland. The United States must remain vigilant.

Student loan Debt Killing Education : Congress Proposes A Fix

One pf the biggest reason why our educational debt became so huge is that when the federal government, during the Ogbjma administration, took control of the educational loan business from the banks and other loan institutions, the student loans became easier to get and for any kind of education no matter how useless it was. As a  result student debt skyrocketed out of control at more then 1.4 trillion.

And little wonder, and this isn't by accident, why educational institutions endowments also skyrocketed. Why should colleges and universities worry about increasing student tuition and services when the federal government is footing the bill? Come one come all. Driving as many young people into huge debt and making them subservient to government demands political acquiescence. 

Barack new from the beginning how this would work to drive debt strapped young people to become enslaved to progressives for just survival after graduation, that is if the even graduated. When the partying is over and the bill arrives in the mail, suddenly the understanding is clear to the student working on the assembly line at the local fast food eatery, they have been duped.

Sadly, making money easy to get for higher education enabled students to pursue academic endeavors that are totally worthless in the market place, leaving them in debt for decades. 

Student Debt Is a Symptom of Our Broken Education System. This Bill Would Spark a Change.
Rep. Ron DeSantis / /

We are facing an education crisis in this country.

While the value of continued education after high school is undeniable, our nation’s singular focus remains on the necessity of traditional four-year degrees, which come at a soaring cost to students and their families.

For many students, a classic bachelor’s degree earned at a brick-and-ivy university is a worthwhile investment that provides the necessary knowledge to succeed in their given field post-graduation. But that is certainly not the case for all students.

Estimates suggest that a quarter to nearly half of college graduates are underemployed, and often work in jobs that do not require a college degree. And college tuition does not come cheap—the amount of student loan debt held by the American people is now higher than credit card debt.
There has to be a better way to give our students the opportunities they deserve while helping drive down the astronomical educational costs that are burdening working-class families.

I recently introduced the Higher Education Reform and Opportunity (HERO) Act, a bill that would foster innovative solutions to the process of higher education accreditation and would essentially put choice and affordability back into the hands of students.

Our country’s burgeoning student loan debt has been driven, in part, by the accrediting agencies that accredit higher education bodies and decide who is worthy of government funding by way of student loans.

The regional accreditation bodies, the universities, and the Department of Education essentially act as a cartel that controls who can enter the system. This impedes the innovation that is needed to tackle high costs, lack of school choice, and the decline of value in four-year degrees.

The HERO Act aims to break up that cartel, opening up higher education to more Americans by empowering individual states to develop their own systems of accrediting educational programs. All accredited programs would then be eligible to receive federal student loan money.

The HERO Act would enable our post-secondary education system to become as diverse and nimble as the industries that are looking to hire.  States would be able to accredit nontraditional education options, such as single courses or vocational programs, to meet the particular needs of their local economy. Students would be able to put federal loan money toward single learning courses, online opportunities, and apprenticeships in skilled trades.

Freeing up states to decide how they wish to accredit education options would spark a new era of competition. Trade schools and nontraditional organizations could directly compete for funding, making their appeals to students who have a variety of interests and seek a return on their investment.

Florida could decide to accredit specialized mechanics apprenticeship programs to cater to our robust flight industry, while California might empower Silicon Valley companies to teach coding programs to students who do not necessarily need a four-year degree.

Not only would the HERO Act allow states to fulfill the educational needs they have identified, but it would give students far greater flexibility to tailor their education to their needs. With the fast pace of innovation and an ever-changing economy, workers can often find themselves in need of educational programming mid-career.

Under the reforms proposed by the HERO Act, students could take shorter courses catered to their specific educational needs rather than leave the workforce completely to go back to school.

It is important to note that this bill would not alter current federal accreditation systems. Federal agencies would, however, have to recognize that individual states are on equal footing to know where the current system is failing, and to accredit programs that will fill this void.

Greater competition would force colleges and universities to reassess their federally subsidized pricing practices and help break the cycle of government subsidies that contributes to rising tuition rates. Some students may no longer choose time-consuming and costly four-year degrees if another educational opportunity at a lower cost could impart the necessary knowledge and skills.

Additionally, the HERO Act would require institutions to publish information regarding student success, to prove that they are fiscally accountable, and to ensure schools are held accountable for student loan defaults.

The HERO Act would expand higher education opportunities to millions of Americans who are underserved by our current system. We cannot allow the iron triangle that currently controls accreditation to stifle innovation and shut out potential students from accessing higher education in a manner that works for them.

Simply put, receiving a four-year degree is not the only means of achieving career success, and our federal education policy should reflect that truth.

Progressive Liberals Are Intolerant : How Did This Happen?

'Know the truth and it will set you free'. And if the truth be known, all will be made clear. Well, the truth is pretty much what ever works to support ones agenda and ideology. The only way to actually believe you have an understanding of truth is to match what you think you know against historical facts.

That is, what actually happened can be proven with historical facts that are readily available from reliable sources.

All to often though, the phrase that is used so often by progressive socialist liberal democrats to drive their narrative is 'the seriousness of the charge' that they make in a public debate where it is very difficult for the opposing view to use history to solidify ones position, and therefore your position becomes untenable, especially if the 'charge' is one that is abhorrent in our civil society like sexual deviancy that occurred in the present or in the past.

The progressive socialist left liberals are indeed becoming totally intolerant with anyone or anything that is in opposition to their agenda for the larger occupation of civil society. And if you don't agree with them, you must be taught a lesson, by force if necessary, that you are no longer independent or free to decide your own fate, obedience and capitulation will be the only path for survival in the ''new wave'' world of progressive liberalism.

How the Left Became So Intolerant
Kim Holmes / /

When most people think of intolerance, they imagine a racist taunting a black person. Or they think of the white supremacist who killed a demonstrator in Charlottesville, Virginia. It seldom occurs to them that intolerance comes in all political shapes and sizes.

A protester storming a stage and refusing to let someone speak is intolerant. So, too, are campus speech codes that restrict freedom of expression. A city official threatening to fine a pastor for declining to marry a gay couple is every bit as intolerant as a right-winger wanting to punish gays with sodomy laws.

There is a word that describes this mentality. It is “illiberal.” For centuries, we have associated the word “liberal” with open-mindedness. Liberals were people who were supposed to be tolerant and fair and who wanted to give all sides a hearing. They cared about everyone, not just their own kind.

By contrast, illiberal people were hardheaded in their opinions and judgmental about others’ behaviors, hoping to control what other people thought and said and to cut off debate. In extreme cases, they would even use violence to maintain political power and exclude certain kinds of people from having a say in their government.

Sadly, the kind of liberalism we used to know is fast disappearing from America. While the intolerance of the far right is well known, its manifestations on the far left are less known and often not fully acknowledged.

All too often, people who call themselves progressive liberals are at the forefront of movements to shut down debates on college campuses and to restrict freedom of speech. They are eager to cut corners, bend the Constitution, make up laws through questionable court rulings, and generally abuse the rules and the Constitution in order to get their way.

They establish “zero tolerance” regimes in schools where young boys are suspended for nibbling breakfast pastries into the shape of a gun. They are supposedly great haters of bigotry but sometimes speak of Christians in the most bigoted manner imaginable, as if Christians were no better than fascists. American liberals are, in short, becoming increasingly illiberal. They are surrendering to the temptations of the closed mind.

 Purchase Kim Holmes’ book, “The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left

We must be careful about what this means. There are hard (sometimes very hard) and soft forms of illiberalism that exist regardless of their ideological (left-right) variations. The hard forms are totalitarian or authoritarian. They rely on the threat of force in some measure to maintain power, and they are invariably anti-democratic and anti-liberal. Think of communism, fascism, and all the various hybrids of authoritarian regimes, from Putin’s Russia to Islamist states that support terrorism.

Soft forms of illiberalism, on the other hand, are not totalitarian or violent. Outwardly they may observe the limits constitutional democracies place on the arbitrary use of power, but there is a suspicion that liberal democracies are not fully legitimate.

On the other side of the political spectrum, leftists often judge liberal democracies as economically and socially unjust because they are capitalist. Since most liberal democracies still allow conservatives to have a voice in the democratic process, leftists find them wanting, and in some cases condemn them outright as inherently oppressive (of racial and sexual minorities, for example), precisely because conservatives still have a voice.

Hard forms of illiberalism certainly exist in America today. On the right they are manifest in the form of hard-core racists and white supremacists, and on the left as communists, anarchists, or any leftist radical who openly threatens violence. But soft illiberalism is present as well, and in America today it is pervasive.

Historically, a progressive liberal was someone who imbibed the intellectual nectars of both progressivism and classical liberalism. The progressive tradition is easily recognizable. It is the legacy of prominent progressives from the turn of the 20th century such as Herbert Croly, John Dewey, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and others. The classical liberal tradition is less well known, and as a result our understanding of it is murkier.

Classical liberalism is a set of ideas about individual liberty and constitutional government inherited from the moderate Enlightenment. In America those ideas influenced the Revolution and the founding of the Republic. In Europe they were taken up in the 19th century by such liberals as Benjamin Constant, David Ricardo, Alexis de Tocqueville, François Guizot, and John Stuart Mill.

Although originally swimming in the same intellectual stream, American progressives and classical liberals started parting company in the late 19th century.

Progressives initially clung to freedom of expression and the right to dissent from the original liberalism, but under the influence of socialism and social democracy they gradually moved leftward. Today they largely hold classic liberalism—especially as manifested in small-government conservatism and libertarianism—in contempt.

Thus, what we call a “liberal” today is not historically a liberal at all but a progressive social democrat, someone who clings to the old liberal notion of individual liberty when it is convenient (as in supporting abortion or decrying the “national security” state), but who more often finds individual liberties and freedom of conscience to be barriers to building the progressive welfare state.

To untangle this confusing web of intellectual history, we need a more accurate historical rendering of what “progressive liberals” actually are. If they are not really liberals, then what are they?

As this volume will explore in more depth, they are postmodern leftists. A postmodernist is someone who believes that ethics are completely and utterly relative, and that human knowledge is, quite simply, whatever the individual, society, or political powers say it is.

When mixed with radical egalitarianism, postmodernism produces the agenda of the radical cultural left—namely, sexual and identity politics and radical multiculturalism. These causes have largely taken over the progressive liberal agenda and given the Democratic Party most of its energy and ideas.

The illiberal values inherent in these causes have been imported from neo-Marxism, radical feminism, critical race theory, sexual revolutionary politics, and other theories and movements imbued with the postmodern critique.

Combined with the dreams of the old social democratic-socialist left, of either dismantling or radically containing capitalism, the culture of the postmodern left today is a very potent force in politics.

This excerpt was taken with permission from Kim Holmes’ book, “The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left” (Encounter Books, 2017).







Thursday, December 14, 2017

Laws Are Only As Good As They Are Accepted : Out With The Old - In With The New

If you ever wondered why the progressive socialist liberals hate the police, Christians and others that reach out to help the fallen without a political agenda or ideology are demonetized for their collective efforts as enemies, wonder on longer.

The progressive socialists must destroy civil society's moral foundations that have been established over centuries to bring civility to the people in place of the chaos and brutality of one person rule.

If they, the progressive liberal democrats, ever hope to reconstruct the country that is favorable to a central authority that replace individual freedom and liberty, they must first convince the general public that what we have now is not working. Our history is a failure. Freedom doesn't work to bring success. Our founders were wrong and all generations that followed have be failures.

Success can only be obtained from the 'new wave' mentality of an all powerful government that provides all things to all people.  And what better way to destroy our founding is to bring chaos to the family and nation through the organized conflict of class division and warfare. Youth have been convinced that they must rule using new rules of engagement. The old ways are counter productive.

Sadly and dangerously, many among the youth today are more then willing agree, freedom isn't all that important. What is important to them is allowing others to lead the way. Self determination is no longer relevant. 

Even the Best Laws Cannot Save Our Society. Here’s What We Need.
Walter E. Williams /


I’m approaching my 82nd birthday, and my daughter will occasionally suggest that modernity is perplexing to me because I’m from prehistoric times.

As such, it points to one of the unavoidable problems of youth—namely, the temptation to think that today’s behavioral standards have always been. Let’s look at a few of the differences between yesteryear and today.

One of those differences is the treatment of women.

There are awesome physical strength differences between men and women. To create and maintain civil relationships between the sexes is to drum into boys, starting from very young ages, that they are not to use violence against a woman for any reason.

Special respect is given women. Yesteryear even the lowest of lowdown men would not curse or use foul language to or in the presence of women. To see a man sitting on a crowded bus or trolley car while a woman is standing used to be unthinkable. It was deemed common decency for a man to give up his seat for a woman or elderly person.

Today young people use foul language in front of—and often to—adults and teachers. It’s not just foul language. Many youngsters feel that it’s acceptable to assault teachers. Just recently, 45 Pennsylvania teachers resigned because of student violence.

Back in what my daughter calls prehistoric times, the use of foul language to an adult or teacher would have meant a smack across the face. Of course, today a parent taking such corrective action risks being reported to a local child protective service and even being arrested.

The modern parental or teacher response to misbehavior is to call for “time out.” In other words, what we’ve taught miscreants of all ages is that they can impose physical pain on others and not suffer physical pain themselves. That’s an open invitation to bad behavior.It has always been considered a good idea to refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage or at least adulthood. During the sexual revolution of the 1960s, lessons of abstinence were ridiculed, considered passé, and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills, and abortion.

Out-of-wedlock childbirths are no longer seen as shameful and a disgrace. As a result, the rate of illegitimate births among whites is over 30 percent, and among blacks, it’s over 70 percent. For over a half-century, the nation’s liberals—along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals, and the courts—have waged war on traditions, customs, and moral values.

Many in today’s generation have been counseled to believe that there are no moral absolutes. Instead, what’s moral or immoral, right or wrong, is a matter of convenience, personal opinion, or what is or is not criminal.

Society’s first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions, and moral values. Customs, traditions, and moral values are those important thou-shalt-nots, such as thou shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie, and shalt not cheat. They also include respect for parents, teachers, and others in authority, plus those courtesies one might read in Emily Post’s rules of etiquette.

These behavioral norms—mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth, and religious teachings—represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience, trial and error, and looking at what works and what doesn’t. The importance of customs, traditions, and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody’s watching.

There are not enough cops. Laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct in producing a civilized society. At best, the police and the criminal justice system are the last desperate lines of defense for a civilized society.

Unfortunately, customs, traditions, and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we’re paying the price—and that includes the recent revelations regarding the treatment of women.

Seniors Suffer The Most Under OgbjmaCare : ACA Tax Destorys Seniors

By the way, who voted for this nightmare called the Affordable Care Act, OgbjmaCare? Oh, wow I know, it was all of the progressive socialist liberal democrats and progressive democrats alone. Not one Republican. How come? 

But Republicans are tasked to fix it and being demonized at the same time because it isn't a perfect fix where everyone is a winner.

Why does it seem that no matter how catastrophic the democrats in everything they do,  they always seem to get into a position to blame others for their collective failures. And who then voted for these monsters calling themselves progressive democrats year after year?

Why it's the misinformed and ill-informed, the ignorant and the stupid among us. Even though these voters can see they have been marginalized, used and abused by their own collective, party, they dutifully vote democrat. It seems these voters like being continually kicked to the curb.

Exactly what does this say about these voters? This might help them to recover, never vote democrat ever again!! Haven't you suffered enough? Hey, haven't we all suffered enough?

Seniors Face Return of Obamacare Tax in 2018
Fred Lucas / /

The clock is ticking for the return of an Obamacare tax that opponents say will hit older Americans on fixed incomes particularly hard, costing them an extra $500 per couple.

Congress hasn’t taken action to delay or eliminate the tax before Jan. 1, when a moratorium on it expires. In 2015, Congress acted on a bipartisan basis to postpone the tax, which dates to President Barack Obama’s second year in office.

“It’s not just seniors, but clearly seniors are more financially strapped. And $500 per couple might not seem like a lot, but for seniors on fixed incomes, my heavens, it’s a real problem,” Jim Martin, chairman of the 60 Plus Association, a conservative organization for senior citizens, told The Daily Signal.

The estimated average of $500 per couple is based on an October study by Oliver Wyman Health, a health research firm that says the tax would mean a “$255 increase per Medicare Advantage member (including Special Needs Plans and Employer Group Waiver Plans).”

Medicare Advantage is a supplemental benefits program in which more than 100 private insurers compete for customers within the federal Medicare program. It covers about one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries.

In 2010, when Democrats in Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, the lawmakers included what the Internal Revenue Service calls the “health insurance provider fee.” Opponents call it the “health insurance tax,” or HIT.

The fee is a tax on health insurance companies, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected the tax “would be largely passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums for private coverage.”  “The bottom line is that HIT is a $12 billion tax annually on health insurance companies,” Martin said. “Guess what the companies are going to do? They’re going to pass it on.”

The 60 Plus Association launched a $500,000 TV ad campaign in November calling on Congress to block the Obamacare tax. The tax collected $8 billion from insurers after going into effect in 2014. The tax doesn’t have a specific rate, but is set to grow every year based on the rate of growth in premiums. The Department of Health and Human Services sets the rate each year based on what it considers needed revenue.

Congress imposed the moratorium on the tax in 2015 to slow the rise in insurance premiums. “It’s an excise tax with a twist that you’re raising a fixed amount of money, and therefore instead of the revenue from the tax varying, the tax rate varies,” Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

Haislmaier continued:
If you have a fixed excise tax like gasoline, if people drive more and consume more gas, the government gets more revenue from the tax. This is one where it says the government wants to get X revenue and if people drive more, we’ll lower the tax and if people drive less, we’ll raise the tax, so that we always get the same amount of revenue.

So, it has this perverse effect, to the extent that fewer people buy insurance, the people that do buy insurance end up paying a higher rate.

Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., who sponsored legislation to delay the tax for another year, spoke about it Wednesday to conservatives gathered in Washington at a meeting convened by Americans for Tax Reform. In a formal statement after introducing the bill in September, Gardner said: “We need to look at every avenue we can to provide relief to the American people from the high costs created by the Affordable Care Act.”

Last month, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., touted his opposition to the coming tax in meeting with business owners in his district.

More than 20 percent of the health insurance tax falls on Medicare Advantage, according to the Better Medicare Alliance, an advocacy group for Medicare recipients. “The HIT tax is applied to all private health insurance plans, but its impact on the senior population will affect those on a fixed income and [who have] less capacity to absorb higher taxes,” Robert Moffit, a senior fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “This is another case where Obama misled the ordinary Americans on fixed income.”