Friday, June 23, 2017

Illegal Voting In Presidential Elections? : Study Finds 5.7 Million Illegals Voted

The progressive socialist democrats are the first to scream foul when the subject of illegals voting comes up but when the dust settles it this the democrats that always relied on fraud to compete in local and national election.

This study does bring to light some interesting facts and assumptions on illegal voting and just how extensive it really is. Little wonder then why the democrats are so adamant on having open boarders for illegals to cross into our country and then vote democrat. 

Up to 5.7 Million Noncitizens Voted in Past Presidential Elections, Study Finds
Fred Lucas / /    

As many as 5.7 million noncitizens voted in the 2008 election and potentially more voted in 2016, according to a new study by Just Facts, a New Jersey-based research group, drawing on information from other studies.

The study—based on data compiled from Harvard University’s Cooperative Congressional Election Study, an analysis published in the journal Electoral Studies co-authored by Old Dominion University faculty, and Census data—also provides some support for what then-President-elect Donald Trump tweeted in late November, when he asserted he won the popular vote if the fraudulent votes were deducted. The Just Facts study did not look specifically at 2016.

The study by Just Facts, which identifies its point of view as conservative/libertarian, but says it maintains independent inquiry, determined as few as 594,000 and as many as 5.7 million noncitizens voted in 2008, in the race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. Eighty-two percent(82%) of noncitizens who admitted to voting in a survey said “I definitely voted” for Obama.

An estimate from 2012, which the study finds to have less complete data, is between 1 million and 3.6 million noncitizens registered to vote or voted, including both the “self declared” and the “database-matched” populations.

Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote over Trump by about 2.9 million votes in 2016.
Previously, an Old Dominion University professor’s analysis found that, extrapolating on a more extensive 2014 study, an estimated 800,000 noncitizens voted in the 2016 election—falling well short of enough to affect the popular vote.

James Agresti, president of Just Facts, was cautious about stating whether this would have changed the result of the popular vote in the 2016 election.  He concluded it is likely the number of noncitizen voters in the most recent presidential election was higher than eight years ago. When asked if noncitizen voters changed the popular vote outcome in 2016, he said, “There is a distinct possibility.” “The 3 million vote margin would be smack in the middle,” Agresti told The Daily Signal. “I don’t want to say it would. There are a lot of uncertainties. It’s possible.”

There are two ways of looking at the noncitizen voting figures for 2012, Agresti said. Based on the Harvard and Census data, between 1 million and 2.6 million noncitizens voted under “self-declared.” However, there are between 1.2 million and 3.6 million “database-matched” noncitizens who voted that year. So the full range is 1 million to 3.6 million. Because of the overlapping information, Agresti is particularly cautious about drawing conclusions here.

“Just Facts does not have all the data needed to calculate inclusive figures for the 2012 election, so these figures are undercounts,” Agresti said.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation who has written extensively about voter fraud, was not very familiar with Just Facts, but he said if the findings were true, it lends more evidence to a growing problem. “This is just another indication of how serious the problem may be and why it is even more important to investigate the possibility of noncitizens voting,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.

In May, Trump named Vice President Mike Pence to chair the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. The difference between the Just Facts finding and the estimate from Old Dominion University research is likely because of a different methodology, said Jesse Richman, an associate professor of political science at Old Dominion University, who did the aforementioned study that arrived at 800,000 noncitizen votes in the 2016 election.

“My impression is that the differences arise principally from the different assumptions we made about how to treat individuals for whom there was some ambiguity about whether they voted or not, e.g. individuals who said they didn’t vote but had a validated vote, etc.,” Richman told The Daily Signal in an email. “There are a variety of assumptions one could make about how to treat those individuals, and my general impression is that this is the main thing driving the differences between our results.”

Richman’s figure was based on the 2014 study he co-authored that looked at noncitizen voting in the 2008 and 2010 elections. Richman applied the methodology from the study of those years to arrive at an estimated 800,000 noncitizen voters in 2016.

Trump Appointments to The Courts : Real Fundamental Change

Justice. What does justice look like in the wake of Barack's religious jihad for change? Is it the rule of law as supported by the Constitution or the fundamental agenda set down, demanded by the progressive socialists to ''transform'' American civil society?

It certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the progressives are very dedicated to their personal and national agenda to change the way we live. And this isn't anything new, it's just now during Barack's tenor at the levers of power, justice isn't blind any longer.  Lady Justice has now been converted to 'see' how things are suppose to be and she acts accordingly to the elites at the democrat national committee who set the rules.

Will Trump and McConnell change the way our courts are used to interoperate the law as written by nominating good Conservative judges, or will they drag their feet allowing the system to continue to be abused by progressive liberal judges ruling on what they 'feel' is the right thing to do?

How Trump Could Change the Country’s Direction With These Court Vacancies
Genevieve Wood / /

There is likely no political issue more important to either side of the ideological spectrum than who controls the Supreme Court. Rumors are building that another justice is going to retire this summer. The odds-on favorites are two members in their 80s: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal justice, and Anthony Kennedy, the notorious swing vote.

If either retire, President Donald Trump’s next nominee could determine the balance of the court for decades—and the fight over that justice will be a battle royala. But as enticing as such prospects may be, is it possible that Trump’s appointments to lower courts are just as important?

The often overlooked reality is this: Whether it’s blocking travel bans or redefining marriage, the Supreme Court only hears cases that lower courts have already heard and voted on. And many of those cases never even reach the Supreme Court. Take a look at these numbers.

There are 94 federal district courts across the country with 670 judges. In 2014, the number of cases filed in those courts was over 390,000. Then there are the all important 13 courts of appeals with 179 judges. In 2014, the number of cases filed in those courts was over 55,000.
Now consider the fact that each year, the Supreme Court only chooses to hear approximately 70 cases.

Watch the video :

Needless to say, from property rights and environmental regulations to state laws on abortion and voting rights, the vast majority of legal cases are decided by judges you’ve never heard of. And just like the Supreme Court, federal judges are lifetime appointments.

Before President Barack Obama took office, only one, just one of the 13 courts of appeals—the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—was considered liberal. Following Obama’s two terms, nine of the 13 are now controlled by Democrat appointees. And the rulings of one circuit court can make a huge difference. For example, the Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals went from reliably conservative pre-Obama to reliably not conservative once Obama was able to appoint four justices to its bench.

Over the past year, that appeals court overturned North Carolina’s voter identification law and sided with a transgender teenager over a battle to use a boys’ restroom. In 2014, it was the 4th Circuit that upheld the legality of tax subsidies under Obamacare—it was that case, King vs. Burwell, that the Supreme Court then took up and confirmed. And it was the 4th Circuit that just last month upheld a Maryland district judge’s ruling blocking Trump’s executive order suspending travelers from certain countries.

One could say that Obama got a lot of bang for his policymaking buck with his four appointments that flipped the judicial philosophy of that court. This is why, despite all their other actions, a president’s judicial nominees may be where they make their biggest long-term impact.

And, this is why, today, with over 120 vacancies scattered across the federal courts, Trump has the opportunity to shape the judiciary—and therefore the third branch of government’s impact on society—for years to come.

Based on the approximately 20 such nominees Trump has sent to the Senate thus far, conservatives should be encouraged. Two of his appeals court nominees come from the list of 21 Supreme Court contenders he published before the election—all of which conservative legal experts considered excellent candidates. Another nominee is a former law clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
And many of his nominees are in their 40s, which means, if confirmed, they will be influencing the federal courts for the next 30 years.

Most of them will never become household names but to a great extent, it will be these judges who determine which liberties Americans enjoy—and which ones they don’t.

Al Gore's Ideology : Let Them Eat Cake!

Just like everything else coming from the progressive socialist left liberals, their ideology and agenda is based on the general public being stupid and complacent. Progressive live a lie and it has worked well for them.  Al Gore? Barack Ogbjma


House  #1
A 20 room  mansion (not including 8  bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate  guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The  average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month.  In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the  national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern
 "snow belt" area. It's in the South.



House  #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the  summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and  it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional  heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area  enable the property to blend into the s
urrounding rural landscape. 

HOUSE #1 is  outside  Nashville ,   Tennessee ; 
it is the abode of the
 "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is  on a ranch near Crawford , Texas ;
it is the residence of ex
President of the United States , George W. Bush.

You can verify it at : politics/bush/house.asp 

Technology Knows Who You Are : No One Can Hide

Welcome to the ''New Word Order'' where we are all just one big family and everything that you thought was individual freedom to be a solitary person is now common knowledge for all to see.

This is just a fun example of the interference of technology in ones personal life, but still brings home just what the near future might look like. And it's not just Big Brother that is watching you, everyone else is to.

Hello! Gordon's pizza No sir it's Google Pizza.
So it's a wrong number? No sir, Google bought it.

OK. Take my order please. Well sir, you want the usual?The usual? Do you know me? According to caller ID, the last 12 times, you ordered pizza with cheese, sausage, thick crust.

OK! That's it. May I now recommend ricotta, arugula with sun dried tomato?No, I hate vegetables. But your cholesterol is 7.4How do you know that? Through the subscriber's guide. We have your blood tests for the last 7 years.

Okay, but I don't want this pizza, I already take medicine. You haven't taken the  medicine regularly, 4 months ago, you only purchased 30 tablets at Drugs Online.I bought more from another pharmacy. It's not showing on your credit card.
I paid in cash. But you did not withdraw that much cash according to your bank statement.I have another source of cash. This is not showing on your last Tax form unless you got it from undeclared income source.

-BLOODY HELL? Stuff Google, Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp. I'm off to an Island without the internet.
I understand sir, but you need to renew your passport; it expired 5 weeks ago."

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Newt Gringrich Expalins The Dangers of Mueller's Investigation : Scooter Libby?

I guess Newt makes a lot sense when one considers what happened to Scooter Libby during the picking of a Grand Jury participants, three attempts were needed to get the results the prosecutor wanted to have to bring down Dick Cheney and later Carl Rove over the lease a CIA agent's name.

Only the prosecutor knew from the beginning who did it and that it wasn't a matter of discovery as the agent was already known to everyone.

The entire trial was a fraud and Newt sees this by Mueller lining up to be the same thing.

Gingrich on Russian Investigation: ‘The Fix Is In’
Ted Goodman /    

Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich is deeply concerned about Robert Mueller’s ability to lead a nonpartisan, unbiased investigation, he said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “The fix is in,” Gingrich said. “This is the establishment counterattacking legally when they lost politically.”
Gingrich is specifically concerned about the fact that employees at Mueller’s ex-law firm, WilmerHale, gave $326,798 to Hillary Clinton in the run up to the 2016 presidential election, compared to the $628 that employees donated to Donald Trump.

Watch the video :

Mueller, a distinguished attorney who served 12 years as FBI director under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, was appointed to serve as special counsel for the Department of Justice in its investigation of any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with Trump’s campaign.

Since his May 17 appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Mueller has put together a team of lawyers, including former prosecutor and WilmerHale partner Jeannie Rhee and former DOJ attorney Andrew Weissmann. “I love this in terms of transparency, [Rhee’s] job was to defend the Clinton Foundation against Freedom of Information Acts,” Gingrich said. “I mean, you can’t make this stuff up.”

“Another one was repudiated by the Supreme Court, nine to zero in the Arthur Andersen case, where they said that said he had hidden evidence,” Gingrich asserted. “The same guy did something similar in hiding evidence against Enron, and four people spent a year in jail who were innocent,” Gingrich said, likely referring to Weissmann.

Gingrich slammed Republicans for not doing enough. “Unfortunately, all too many Republicans are sleepwalking and pretending this is all okay,” he said. “And they don’t do any research. They don’t look at what’s the background to what’s going on here? This is not a fair game. These are people who are out to destroy Trump.” Gingrich said that when he began digging deeper into Mueller, he discovered some worrisome facts. “You couldn’t make this up if you were doing this for a novel,” Gingrich asserted. ”

Watch the video :

“The left is desperate to find a way to defeat Trump,” Gingrich said. “And, they’re desperate—they cannot believe Trump beat them. Therefore, the Russians must have done it.” Gingrich also asserted that at the Justice Department, among those who were politically active, 97 percent of the donations went to Clinton, compared to Trump’s 3 percent.

“So, when you say to me, ‘Do I worry about Mueller as an investigator?’ I think, ‘Well, do I worry about a department that’s 97 to 3 [percent] that would pick somebody who’s from a law firm which is 99.81 [percent]?’ Uh, as a historian, yeah, I’d worry,” Gingrich concluded. “And then you look at who he hired and it gets worse.”

Gingrich spoke to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Ginni Thomas as part of her Saturday Night “Leaders” series.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email

Congress to Work Through Recess? : Getter Done!

What a novel idea, the congress should continue to work getting their job done before they take a break. Making this happen, getting the healthcare bill done, will be a feather in the hat of Republicans with the general public, showing they really care about the people's business, and cause the progressive liberal's heads to explode. Always a good thing!

White House Pushes Trump Priorities Before Congressional Recess
Fred Lucas / /    

As some Republicans in Congress are calling on leadership to allow the legislative branch to work through the August recess, the White House touted President Donald Trump’s priorities that Congress should move on.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer deferred to congressional leadership on scheduling, in response to a question from The Daily Signal about scrapping or shortening the August recess.
“That’s going to be up to the House and the Senate to determine their recess,” Spicer told The Daily Signal during a press briefing Tuesday. “Generally, we don’t get involved in their schedule. I’ll let Speaker [Paul] Ryan and Leader [Mitch] McConnell decide what’s appropriate.”

The Daily Signal followed by asking Spicer if Trump is satisfied with the pace of Congress on issues such as repealing Obamacare and tax reform. “If we continue to move forward with health care, the way we’ve been told we’re going to, I think we’re great,” Spicer said. “We’ve got our priorities. We want to get health care done. We want to get tax reform done. And obviously, the president has spoken very extensively about infrastructure. If we can get those done, I think we feel really good.”

Pressed further on a timeline, Spicer said, “We’ll go as quick as Congress wants.” “That’s a little out of our hands. But it’s—as soon as Congress can do it, we’ll do what we can,” Spicer said. “When the House had its bill up, the president worked feverishly to make sure that he did everything he could to get it over the finish line. I think we’ll do the same for all those other scenarios as well.”

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and the caucus support working through the August recess.

Watch the video :

Also, Republican Sens. David Perdue of Georgia, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, and Steve Daines of Montana have called on McConnell to keep the Senate in session, The Hill reported.

'Fracking' Study Finds ''No Harm No Foul'' : Drinking Water Unaffected

I guess what this article is saying is that the environmental industry has not shown ''fracking'' to be a contaminate to drinking water. But then it really wasn't about drinking water contaminates but the environmental industry's push to eliminate fossil energy, oil and gas in favor of ''renewable'' energy like wind, solar and biofuels.

The bottom line of course is that fossil fuel use, increased Carbon Dioxide(CO2) being released, is causing a climate change that is destroying our planet. And that there isn't reliable proof that this actually occurring is of no concern to the climate changers. As past history  if proof enough over several decades of predicted catastrophic results haven't happen, it's really about taxpayers supporting the climate change industry with more of their hard earned dollars.

What is really frustrating is that the general public doesn't find climate change very important when surveyed, but still willing to give this industry more money to produce more false clams of events to come that will kill us all.

How is it that so many people can be fooled so easily, year after year even when they know better and have stated so? Yikes!

Study Finds Fracking Doesn’t Harm Drinking Water in Texas
Fred Lucas / /    

Hydraulic fracturing hasn’t contaminated groundwater in Texas, isn’t an earthquake hazard, and has been a boon for the state’s economy, according to a study released Monday. The new study’s conclusions on drinking water are in line with multiple other studies of hydraulic fracturing, popularly known as fracking.

Hydraulic fracturing is the process of drilling into rock and injecting a high-pressure mixture of water, sand, and chemicals to obtain shale gas and oil, which is produced from fractured rock. Some environmentalists argue that it can harm water supplies.

The report initiated by the Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas, based in Austin, asserted that “direct migration of contaminants from targeted injection zones is highly unlikely to lead to contamination of potential drinking water aquifers.”

To conduct the three-year study, the academy assembled a panel called the Task Force on the Environmental and Community Impact of Shale. “In Texas and pretty much everywhere, hydraulic fracturing has not been proven to have an adverse impact on drinking water,” Christine Ehlig-Economides, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Houston who is chairwoman of the task force, told The Daily Signal.

The study examined the impact of fracking on drinking water. “The average annual water use for hydraulic fracturing activities in 2011 and 2012 in Texas was about 20 billion gallons of water,” the report said, citing an Environmental Protection Agency study from last year. “Because this volume represents on 0.2 percent of total water use in the state, and 0.7 percent of total state consumptive use, it might be considered small.”

The study also explored the impact of fracking in five other areas: geology and earthquake activity; land resources; air quality; the economy; and society. It found generally positive results for each.
However, in a sixth category, transportation, the report found that fracking produced a surge of trucks, damaging pavement at an estimated cost to state taxpayers of $1.5 billion to $2 billion per year.

Even so, the study concluded that fracking adds $473 billion to the Texas economy and created 3.8 million jobs. “Texas has had a long history of oil and gas technology for the world,” Economides said. “Has it had environmental impacts? Yes, it has since it started in the 1850s. But over that time, the industry has learned and corrected those mistakes.”

Last year, the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency completed a five-year study that didn’t find evidence of widespread contamination as a result of fracking. The EPA said fracking can affect drinking water “under some circumstances,” but didn’t cite any confirmed instances and determined there were too many uncertainties about existing data of contamination. The Texas academy study cited a 2011 Groundwater Protection Council study, which found that 10 of the 211 contamination incidents examined occurred because of drilling and none was related to fracking.
The Texas academy study asserted that direct fracking into rock affecting the state’s drinking water supply “has not been observed in Texas.”

In March, a U.S. Geological Survey of 116 wells across Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas found fracking was not a major source of chemicals and methane in drinking water wells. It concluded that the detected levels of methane were likely naturally occurring.

A University of Texas study found methane levels from well water in two Texas counties, Parker and Hood, weren’t the result of North Texas’s Barnett Shale, after a sample of 479 wells in those counties. A Duke University study dated July 2017 noted a “lack of changes in water quality observed in drinking-water wells following the installation of nearby shale-gas wells.”

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Public Schools Fail to Educate : Poor And Minorities Suffering

It's defiantly true that our public educational system is in need of reform, but the problem is larger then just unions and other individuals and organizations that seek to profit from public funding of education. It is the total failure of the ideological political system that makes sure the disadvantaged do not have an opportunity to gain a good education, making the poor and disadvantaged independent of political pressure to vote like they are told.

Remember when one of Barack's first official acts back in 2009 was to end charter schools in Washington DC where thousands of black students got good educations. There were huge waiting lines to get into the charter schools. Barack's children went to private schools. 

And that wasn't an accident of poor policy, that was by political design to keep the poor from ever gaining prosperity and independence from the welfare of others. Of course it was pay-back to the National Educational Association for their support during the election process.

It is also a fact that once a person becomes educated and indepent they will vote their conscience which bods poorly for progressive democrats that rely on minorities remaining poor and dependent.

Our Public School System Isn’t Producing Education Equality
Kay Coles James /

All across America, preparations are underway for high school graduation. It’s a glorious time, representing both a milestone and a gateway to adulthood. But missing from this year’s ceremonies are more than one million kids who dropped out and will not be attending graduation day.

The future those high school dropouts face is chilling. They will have a much harder time getting a job and will earn much less than those who did graduate. They’re also more likely to commit a crime and more likely to be the victim of one. In short, many of them face a life that will be so much more difficult—all because they could not or chose not to finish high school.

The consequences of this crisis are especially evident in my community. Today, more than half of all African-American students in many large U.S. cities don’t graduate from high school. Think about that. And those kids aren’t just dropping out—they’re escaping.

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, schools that serve majority-minority communities have the worst performance, the highest crime rates, and the largest achievement gaps.
In cities like Detroit, more than nine in 10 black students can’t even read or do math at grade level.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way.

In 1954, the Supreme Court issued its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, ruling that school segregation is unconstitutional. “Massive Resistance” soon followed as many states launched an all-out effort to block integration. My home state of Virginia was one of them, and anti-reform forces there mobilized to prevent black students from going to whites-only schools. They succeeded for a while but, in 1960, the first contingent of brave black students changed all that. I was a member of the second contingent and, in 1961, was one of 26 black students assigned to integrate John Chandler Middle School in Richmond.

As the first day of school approached, we heard ominous threats of “blood flowing in gutters.” Thankfully, that didn’t happen. Instead, the only blood I saw was mine. For the first month at Chandler, I never made it through the packed hallways between classes without at least one white student pricking me with a pin. Sometimes, I was stuck so many times I had to press my dress against my body to keep the red streams from dripping down my legs.

It was awful, but it was worth it. In my own little way, I knew I was fighting for our equal right to get a great education.

Little did I know that more than half a century later, other girls and boys would still be fighting for education equality. Many of those kids are African-American like me, and the families many of them come from are poor and broken, like mine was. But I was able to attend a better school, and they aren’t. Instead, anti-reform forces are blocking them from going to better-performing public charter and private schools.

Today, the nemesis isn’t the old Massive Resistance crowd, but a similarly determined cartel of unions, bureaucrats, and politicians. They make a great deal of money from the current system in the form of union dues, salaries, and political contributions. As a result, they view education equality as a threat and anyone seeking it as their enemy.

Just ask Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. Appearing before Congress recently, DeVos testified that her goal is “ensuring that every student has an equal opportunity to receive a great education.”
But rather than be hailed for seeking the equality promised decades ago, she’s being attacked by those who want things to stay just as they are.

But the secretary isn’t just right—she’s echoing the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling which declared education to be “a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”

Today in America, that right is conditional. If you are wealthy, white, connected, or elected, your child probably goes to or graduated from a great school. But if you are African-American or Latino and living in a poor urban neighborhood, your child is much more likely to go to a failing school, a school where more than half of all students can’t read or write well, have low math scores, face the daily threat of bullying and violence, and won’t graduate. Do these sound like “equal terms” to you?
In place of the equality mandated by the Supreme Court, we have disparities that are so shocking they defy belief.

Right now, America’s public school system includes outstanding institutions where students get an excellent education, use the best academic, athletic, and cultural facilities tax dollars can buy, and go on to college and promising lives. And the same school system also includes failure factories where students don’t learn, spend their days in dilapidated and crime-infested buildings, fall further and further behind, and often drop out.

Now, which of these schools do you think is most often found in poor minority neighborhoods?
The reality, as House Speaker Paul Ryan has put it, is that the current system is effectively quarantining poor and minority children in failure factories.

For the sake of all those high school dropouts who will miss out on this month’s graduations, our nation needs the proponents of education equality to prevail. Every single child—no matter their race, income, gender, or address—has the equal right to receive an excellent education. And every day in which that right isn’t a reality is a day in which we are losing more of these precious children.

Supreme Court Rules Against Progressives : PC Is Not Legitimate

The fight for common sense is an never ending battle against the forces of progressive socialism that is embedded in our civil society as a result of decades of progressive democrat control of the levers of power.

If we want to bring back common sense civil discourse to our society, don't vote for more democrats.

What This Supreme Court Ruling Means for the Washington Redskins, Other Brands Deemed ‘Offensive’
Elizabeth Slattery / /    

Should “offensive” brand names be allowed to get a federal trademark? The Supreme Court answered “yes” on Monday, handing a decisive win to Simon Tam and his band, The Slants.

Tam had tried to register a trademark for his band’s name, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied his application, citing a provision of the federal law known as the Lanham Act. That provision of the law prohibits registering trademarks that “may disparage … persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the unanimous opinion for eight members of the Court, finding the Lanham Act’s disparagement provision unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in this decision because the case was briefed and argued before he joined the court.

The disparagement provision, Alito wrote, “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” He further explained, “The proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”

This decision continues the trend of cases extending First Amendment protection for offensive speech, such as burning crosses, animal “crush” videos, violent video games, lying about military honors, and the Westboro Baptist Church protesting military funerals.

The Patent Office had argued that trademarks are a form of government speech, not private speech. When the government itself is speaking, the government can choose to favor or disfavor a particular viewpoint. But the court rejected this argument, pointing out that slapping the government’s “seal of approval” on speech could lead to “silenc[ing] or muffl[ing] the expression of disfavored viewpoints.”

Alito asked, if trademarks are government speech, what message is it trying to convey to Americans by endorsing “Just do it, “Have it your way,” and “Think different” (trademarks held by Nike, Burger King, and Apple, respectively)?

Stay up to date with the latest at the Supreme Court by checking out SCOTUS 101, a new podcast hosted by Heritage Foundation scholars Elizabeth Slattery and Tiffany Bates.

Unlike other areas the court has recognized as government speech, trademarks are not “closely identified in the public mind” with the government. Examples of government speech include advertisements promoting the sale of beef that were authorized by Congress and paid for by the Department of Agriculture, monuments donated to public parks, and license plates issued by states.
Alito explained that even if the Court used a relaxed standard of review for restrictions on commercial speech, the disparagement provision still violated the First Amendment.

Under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Services Commission of New York (1980), a restriction on commercial speech must be “narrowly drawn” to advance a “substantial interest.”

Alito maintained that the disparagement provision is too broad: “[It] reaches any trademark that disparages any person, group, or institution. It applies to trademarks like the following: “Down with racists,” “Down with sexists,” “Down with homophobes.” It is not an anti-discrimination clause; it is a happy-talk clause … [I]t goes much further than is necessary to serve the interest asserted.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately on this point (joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan), explaining that they would apply heightened scrutiny and that there should not be a “blanket exemption from the First Amendment’s requirement of viewpoint discrimination” for commercial speech.

Today’s decision will have implications for another case pending in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit involving the Washington Redskins, which lost six trademarks for allegedly being offensive to Native Americans in 2014. This cancellation meant that the team would be unable to invoke federal remedies in preventing others from selling merchandise or services that use the term “Washington Redskins,” thereby depriving the business of a valuable property right.

In Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, the lower courts were looking at whether “Redskins” was viewed as disparaging by a “substantial composite” of Native Americans at the time the six Redskins trademarks were issued starting in 1967—not whether the term “Redskins” is viewed as disparaging by Native Americans today.

In fact, a Washington Post poll last year found that nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the name. The Fourth Circuit put the case on hold last fall while the Supreme Court was considering The Slants’ case. Now, the Redskins’ case should move forward. It would be hard to square a ruling against the Redskins in light of the Supreme Court’s full-throated defense of free speech.
Note: This article has been updated to clarify that the Supreme Court ruling pertains to companies seeking federal trademarks, not patents.

Canadians Must kneel to A Minority : Tyranny by law

The Canadians don't have a Bill or Rights like we do here in the states as part of our Constitution. But non the less it bodes poorly for all citizens in Canada when a very small group of individuals can dictate what others, the majority can say even by the rule of law that forces them to kneel to respect the demands of this very small minority.

Truly this is tyranny and to deny it is fatal. You can run from the ''rent seekers'' but you can't hide.

Canadians Could Be Jailed or Fined for Using Incorrect Gender Pronouns
Rob Shimshock / /

Canada passed a law Thursday making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training.

Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts “gender identity” and “gender expression” into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code by a vote of 67-11, according to LifeSiteNews. The bill now only needs royal assent from the governor general.
“Great news,” announced Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister. “Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove.”

“Proud that Bill C-16 has passed in the Senate,” said Jody Wilson-Raybould, the country’s attorney general and minister of justice. “All Canadians should feel #FreeToBeMe.”

“[There’s an argument] that transgender identity is too subjective a concept to be enshrined in law because it is defined as an individual’s deeply felt internal experience of gender,” said Grant Mitchell, a conservative senator, in November 2016. “Yet we, of course, accept outright that no one can discriminate on the basis of religion, and that too is clearly a very deeply subjective and personal feeling.”

Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto, and one of the bill’s fiercest critics, spoke to the Senate before the vote, insisting that it infringed upon citizens’ freedom of speech and institutes what he views as dubious gender ideology into law. “Compelled speech has come to Canada,” stated Peterson. “We will seriously regret this.” “[Ideologues are] using unsuspecting and sometimes complicit members of the so-called transgender community to push their ideological vanguard forward,” said the professor to the Senate in May. “The very idea that calling someone a term that they didn’t choose causes them such irreparable harm that legal remedies should be sought [is] an indication of just how deeply the culture of victimization has sunk into our society.”

Peterson has previously pledged not to use irregular gender pronouns and students have protested him for his opposition to political correctness. “This tyrannical bill is nothing but social engineering to the nth degree, all in the name of political correctness,” Jeff Gunnarson, vice president of Campaign Life Toronto, a pro-life political group in Canada, told LifeSiteNews.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to the director of communications for the House of Commons, but received no comment in time for publication.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, contact

The Night Watchman : The Curse of Government

I wonder what government agency or department demonstrates efficiency and common sense? And hey it isn't just progressive democrats, it's the established government that includes Republicans like the ones sitting on their collective hands now showing their contempt for President Trump. 

Don't know who wrote this below or even if the figures are accurate, but it's on the mark. Big government is destroying our country.

The Night Watchman

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.
Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.
Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One was to do the studies and one was to write the reports.
Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created two positions: a time keeper and a payroll officer then hired two people.
Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cut back." So they laid-off the night watchman.
NOW slowly, let it sink in. Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter. Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter administration? Anybody? Anything? No? Didn't think so!
Bottom line is, we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency, the reason for which very few people who read this can remember! Ready?? It was very simple... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate. The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh???
THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?" 39 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 24% of our oil consumption is foreign imports – Just think of cost per gallon to reduce petroleum imports by just 6% in in 49 years. Ah, yes -- good old Federal bureaucracy.
Signed....The Night Watchman

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

The People Understand : Progressive Don't Understand

Interesting understanding of the situation where hate has taken over for common sense and logic, let alone civilized debate. Life become marginalized with the constant need for increased hateful thought and rhetoric.

If you can understand what is happening at Evergreen State College in Washington State, then you understand the destructive force of progressive socialist liberalism.

I believe one of the best definition of liberalism is that ''liberalism cannot be defended by rational debate''. Once you have made that important decision to leave the real world and live a tortured life solely on irrational and delusional concepts, regaining integrity and personal civility is nearly impossible.

The following leads the opposition to why progressive liberals lost the election. Progressive lost the people.

"US" by Paul Genova     (Mr. Paul Genova has been President and Chief Operating Officer of Wireless Telecom Group Inc. since June 30, 2016.
I haven't said too much about this election since the start....but this is how I feel....I'm noticing that a lot of people aren't graciously accepting the fact that their candidate lost. In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those who voted for Trump.

Some are apparently "triggered" because they are posting how "sick" you feel about the results.
How did this happen you ask? Well here is how it happened!
You created "us" when you attacked our freedom of speech.
You created "us" when you attacked our right to bear arms.
You created "us" when you attacked our Christian beliefs.
You created "us" when you constantly referred to us as racists.
You created "us" when you constantly called us xenophobic.
You created "us" when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.
You created "us" when you attacked our flag
You created "us" when you took God out of our schools.
You created "us" when you confused women's rights with feminism.
You created "us" when you began to emasculate men.
You created "us" when you decided to make our children soft.
You created "us" when you decided  to vote for progressive ideals.

You created "us" when you attacked our way of life.
You created "us" when you decided  to let our government get out of control.
You created "us" the silent majority
You created "us" when you began murdering innocent law enforcement officers.
You created "us" when you lied and said we could keep our insurance plans and our doctors.

You created "us" when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
You created "us" when you took a knee, or stayed seated or didn't remove your hat during our National Anthem.
You created "us" when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.

And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
And we did it with ballots, not bullets.With ballots, not riots.
With ballots, not looting.
With ballots, not blocking traffic.
With ballots, not fires, except the one you started inside of "us"

   "YOU" created "US"  It really is just that simple.