It's really about the money and how esasy it is the make fools out of so many.
And if it's not climate change, it's ''hands up don't shoot'' in Ferguson.
Or it's the systematic and random killing of black men, women and children by the police.
How does this happen and where do these people get their information to form opinions?
And what about the football players? The can run, kick, catch, block, and throw the football on the playing field better then anyone else, but they actually live in a bubble. And they expect to make a difference?
And what about Michelle Ogbjma when the terrorist kidnaped 250 school children by Boko Haram in Nigeria, she went on TV and held up a sign that said #get our girls back. Who would believe that would actually work. Of course it didn't but million swooned at the insightful brilliance.
This has been around for a while but it still works.
This morning I went to sign my Dogs up for welfare. At first the lady said, "Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare". So I explained to her that my Dogs are mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can't speak English and have no frigging clue who their Daddy's are. They expect me to feed them, provide them with housing and medical care.
So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify.
My Dogs get their first checks Friday. Damn this is a great country.
It all depends on your belief of what matters to you whether it's right or wrong.
If those that believe and have the platform to demand you believe like they do or else, then the game is over for you.
It's the brave new world of progressive socialism. The trouble that this new world has though is the number of people that believe are few and those that don't buy into it are many.
But still, why does it seem the 'new worlders' seem to be winning anyway?
Interesting. This isn't the first article on how the NFL is shaking down the public for funds while the owners and the players pocket millions of dollars, still Makin brings a good perspective to just how the NFL seems to believe they hold a special place in our society that requires the citizens to support their habit for success.
The NFL Has Its Hands Deep in Taxpayer Money Michelle Malkin / @michellemalkin /
I’m calling foul on all the leftists rushing to protect the NFL’s protest crusaders from President Donald Trump’s criticism of their national anthem antics. Their shabby line of defense? The NFL is a “private enterprise” whose “rights” are being violated by those who dare to challenge the league’s political radicalization.
The anti-Trump Democratic Coalition has even filed an ethics complaint alleging that the president’s comments constitute a criminal violation against using government offices “to influence the employment decisions and practices” of a private entity.
Funny. These fair-weather friends of corporate free speech and the First Amendment were nowhere to be found when Boston Mayor Tom Menino and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel were vowing to shut down Chick-Fil-A in their towns as government retaliation against the founders’ private religious beliefs.
As for the NFL’s status as a “private” enterprise? That’s some Super Bowl-sized audacity right there.
I first started tracking publicly subsidized sports boondoggles with my very first watchdog website, Porkwatch, back in 1999. Since then, taxpayers at all levels of government have foot the bill for football stadiums to the tune of an estimated $1 billion every year.
Over the past decade, new tax-supported NFL stadiums rose up for the Indianapolis Colts (the $720 million Lucas Oil Stadium), the Dallas Cowboys (the $1.15 billion AT&T Stadium), the New York Jets and Giants (the $1.6 billion MetLife Stadium), the Minnesota Vikings (the $1.1 billion U.S. Bank Stadium), the Atlanta Falcons (the $1.5 billion Mercedes-Benz Stadium), and the San Francisco 49ers (the $1.3 billion Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara).
Next in the works: a whopping $2.6 billion stadium for the Los Angeles Chargers and Rams and a $1.9 billion stadium for the Oakland Raiders when they move to Las Vegas.
Left behind? An $83 million taxpayer debt on two-decade-old renovations to the Alameda County Coliseum that the Raiders are abandoning. Both political parties have supported massive redistribution of taxes from working people to the gridiron’s spoiled 1-percenters. Public-private sports palace boosters employ the same bogus economic development math as the federal government’s infamous Solyndra green energy loans, stimulus rip-offs, and jobs programs.
Citizens are promised an enormous multiplier of jobs and benefits in return for their “investments.” But instead they’ve been saddled with a field of schemes. Sports economists have concluded repeatedly that the effects of stadium subsidies on employment and economic activity are negligible—or even negative.
Scott Wolla of the St. Louis Federal Reserve reported earlier this year, “In a 2017 poll, 83 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that ‘Providing state and local subsidies to build stadiums for professional sports teams is likely to cost the relevant taxpayers more than any local economic benefits that are generated.'”
Yet, the NFL, its teams, and its sponsors continue to benefit from a bonanza of tax-free loans, municipal bonds, rent waivers, and property tax exemptions. Congress provided the league with an antitrust exemption that protects its monopoly broadcasting rights.
Localities have raided “emergency” funds to help pay for stadium construction. And corporate benefactors write off their expenses for luxury boxes, tickets, and naming-rights purchases.
As long as the NFL has its hog noses buried in the taxpayer trough, I’ll keep speaking up about all the football militants who backed former 49ers QB Colin Kaepernick and his disgusting cops-as-pigs socks.
You wanna raise your fists on the field? Get your grubby hands out of our pockets first.
Goodness. How do things get so messed up? Oh wait I know, government involvement, regulations and special interests drive common sense out of the debate. And just where is congress on this emergency?Where is president Trump? The Obscure Law Affecting Puerto Rico’s Ability to Recover After Hurricane Maria Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH /
A relatively obscure maritime law is in the spotlight after the devastation of Puerto Rico from Hurricane Maria. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, better known as the Jones Act, has typically been confined to debates about energy independence, trade, and regulation. The law requires shipments between two U.S. ports be on U.S.-built, U.S.-manned, and U.S.-owned vessels.
The Trump administration has granted temporary waivers to the law after recent hurricanes in Texas and Florida, but has yet to do so in Puerto Rico, despite pressure from Congress. The previous waivers were primarily for the purpose of transporting fuel. “Puerto Rico didn’t need this storm to be ground zero on the harm done by the Jones Act,” Salim Furth, a senior fellow in macroeconomics at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “They were already being cut off from the main market, effectively paying double the shipping costs.”
It’s also a problem for other U.S. regions apart from the continental United States, noted James Coleman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University, the author of a forthcoming white paper on the subject for the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project. He writes:
The Jones Act has also long imposed particularly heavy burdens on far-flung domestic ports like Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, because they often import commodities from the United States.
This problem is particularly salient in Puerto Rico, which just declared bankruptcy because it is $74 billion in debt.
Economists estimate that, just from 1970 [to] 2012, the Jones Act cost Puerto Rico’s economy $29 billion. Reforming the Jones Act could save consumers in Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii as much as $15 billion per year.
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that her department hasn’t rejected a waiver outright yet, and said the department is researching the matter.
“There’s two issues with Puerto Rico. One is the potential shortage of carriers with the U.S. flag carriers,” Duke told the committee Wednesday. “The second is tariffs and other things that make the fuel cost high in Puerto Rico, and that’s what we’re hearing, too, that people are suffering from the tariffs.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a longtime advocate for repealing the law, wrote a letter to Duke this week asking for a waiver for Puerto Rico. He also tweeted about it Wednesday.
Eight House Democrats also have asked for a waiver for Puerto Rico, in a letter to Duke, writing:
The island is now facing an unprecedented, uphill battle to rebuild its homes, businesses and communities. Temporarily loosening these requirements—for the express purposes of disaster recovery—will allow Puerto Rico to have more access to the oil needed for its power plants, food, medicines, clothing, and building supplies.
President Barack Obama declined calls to waive the Jones Act to help in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. President George W. Bush did waive the law after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
The American Maritime Partnership, the U.S. shipbuilders lobby, contends that lawmakers are making false assumptions about the law’s impact, and released what it calls a “fact check” on Wednesday, disputing assertions from what it labeled “a parade of politicians and ‘experts.’”
Claim: The Jones Act prevents cargo from foreign vessels to reach Puerto Rico.
False. Any foreign vessel can call on Puerto Rico. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in a 2011 report that two-thirds of the ships serving Puerto Rico were foreign ships. 55 different foreign carriers provided imported cargo to Puerto Rico in a single month, as cited as an example by GAO.
Foreign shipping companies compete directly with the American shipping companies in an intensely competitive transportation market.
Claim: A Jones Act waiver would add efficiency to the delivery of essential cargoes to impacted communities.
Because of infrastructure challenges, a Jones Act waiver could hinder, not help, relief efforts. A Jones Act waiver could overwhelm the system, creating unnecessary backlogs and causing confusion on the distribution of critical supplies throughout the island.
Already, there are logistical bottlenecks for Jones Act cargoes as a result of the inability to distribute goods within Puerto Rico due to road blockages, communications disruptions, and concerns about equipment shortages, including trucks, chassis, and containers.
“The men and women of the American maritime industry stand committed to the communities in Puerto Rico impacted by Hurricane Maria, where many of our own employees and their families reside and are working around the clock to respond to the communities in need,” Thomas A. Allegretti, chairman of the American Maritime Partnership, said in a statement.
“A steady stream of additional supplies keeps arriving in Puerto Rico on American vessels and on international ships from around the world. The problem now is distributing supplies from Puerto Rico’s ports inland by surface transportation,” he said. The hurricane season could provide some momentum for Congress to consider repealing the law, said Coleman, the SMU law professor.
The law itself could pose political problems for President Donald Trump, however, Coleman said.
“There are tensions between ‘America First’ and the goal of economic growth and energy dominance,” Coleman said. “It’s a protectionist law that protects certain groups, but it harms the productivity of other groups.”
The Trump administration backtracked from a regulatory expansion of the Jones Act proposed by its predecessor. Two days before leaving office, the Obama administration sought to administratively expand the reach of the law under Customs and Border Protection. On May 10, under the Trump administration, the CPB withdrew the proposed regulatory change.
Northeastern states are more likely to get oil from foreign sources, rather than from domestic sources, because of the law, Coleman contends in his white paper.
Unfortunately, because of the Jones Act, it costs three times as much to ship oil from Texas to refineries on the U.S. East Coast as it costs to ship oil [from] Canada.
There are simply not enough Jones Act compliant ships to carry Texas oil to the U.S. East Coast, so it must be shipped [from] abroad. Similarly, northeastern U.S. refineries pay more than three times as much to ship oil from Texas, rather than from West Africa or Saudi Arabia.
As a result, the northeastern U.S. is more likely to rely on foreign sources of crude oil, while, with the ban on U.S. oil exports now ended, U.S. oil is shipped longer distances abroad, leaving American consumers behind.
A compelling “America First” argument is that repeal of the Jones Act would allow freer trade within the borders of the United States, said Furth of The Heritage Foundation. “It’s also in line with ‘drain the swamp’ because this is a lobbyists’ law,” Furth said. “The lawyered-up, lobbied-up industries are aware their profits depending heavily on this law.”
The fight for individual freedom is alive and well. Even in the face of tremendous odds where most mains stream media, television and printed is wholly owned and operated by progressive socialist liberals, Conservative organizations are making progress in educating the next generation to maintain and sustain our most basic freedoms as guaranteed by our Constitution. But it is also known that the fight has only begun for Conservatives and others that believe in the freedom to chose. And it's none to soon, as the progressive socialist leftists criminals are bringing their fight to the streets with violence and destruction to win the day.
Fund for American Studies, Invented by a Son of Edison, Celebrates 50 Years Ian Snively /
Fifty years ago, a former governor of New Jersey and son of famed inventor Thomas Edison spent his last years trying to counter the radical extremes of social change during the 1960s.
In response to some of what he saw on college campuses and in the streets, Charles Edison teamed with other conservatives in February 1967 to create a Washington-based educational organization that would become the Fund for American Studies. “Activists were burning and blowing up buildings on college campuses. And trying to convince young people that communism was preferable to capitalism,” Steve Slattery, executive vice president of the Fund for American Studies, told The Daily Signal.
Though Edison died in July 1969 just shy of his 79th birthday, today the organization he founded hosts multiple programs teaching young people what it calls “limited government, free-market economics, and honorable leadership.”
The Fund for American Studies will celebrate its 50th anniversary Thursday with a luncheon featuring Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and a gala dinner dance where guests will include former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Lee Edwards, a historian of the conservative movement who is the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation, said he is grateful for the work of the Fund for American Studies. “The academic empire of the 50-year-old Fund for American Studies, with its 11 institutes that span the globe from Washington, D.C., to Hong Kong, attests to the old saw that a good idea can have exceedingly good consequences,” Edwards told The Daily Signal.
Watch the video : https://www.facebook.com/TFASorg/videos/10155095881336424/
Edison was one six children. A businessman and inventor himself, he broke with a family tradition of Republicanism when he ran for governor of New Jersey in 1940 as a Democrat after serving first as assistant Navy secretary and then Navy secretary under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
In 1962, however, he helped found New York state’s Conservative Party. Joining Edison in 1967 to start what initially was called the Charles Edison Youth Fund were some heavyweights of the conservative movement: then-Rep. Walter Judd, R-Minn., also a physician and missionary to China; Marvin Liebman, a political activist and fundraiser who later became a gay rights advocate; David R. Jones, an educator who served as the fund’s CEO; and William F. Buckley Jr., writer, commentator, and founder of National Review. In an email to The Daily Signal, Slattery attributed this quote to the younger Edison: “The honorable man cherishes the heritage made available to him by the Founding Fathers of his nation and by thousands of years of history in which men strove for freedom and decency.” In 1985, by Edison’s stipulation that it not continue to bear his name, the organization became the Fund for American Studies. By its counting, it has taught nearly 17,000 students over 50 years, helping them achieve in fields including journalism, public policy, and academics. “The first TFAS program hosted 56 students,” Slattery said. “By the late 1980s, we sponsored just two summer programs for college students. Today we have seven U.S. summer programs, two semester programs, and four international programs, which together educate 750 students each year.”
The organization’s programs soon reached beyond its home in Washington: It provided classes in Europe in 1993 after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall. It hosted a summer program at Charles University in the Czech Republic to teach former Soviet citizens about democratic values and the free-market system. And it offered programs in Hong Kong and Chile. “In the next 50 years, we hope to continue to expand our programs and our influence,” Slattery said. Looking forward, the Fund for American Studies plans to expand its economic programs to high schools. The initiative started when the organization partnered with a sister group, the California-based Foundation for Teaching Economics, in 2014. It offers one-week and one-day programs that teach economic fundamentals to students. The organization also plans to hire more campus leaders for a new scholarship program next year. The program will provide merit-based scholarship opportunities to students with financial needs. Gorsuch will speak Thursday at the fund’s “Defending Freedom Luncheon” at the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue in Northwest Washington. In the evening, the organization expects more than 700 guests at its anniversary gala at the National Building Museum in the heart of Washington. Roger Ream, the fund’s president since 1998, will outline new ventures, Slattery said. Besides Rumsfeld, featured guests include Paula Dobriansky, former under secretary of state for democracy and global affairs, and ABC News anchor David Muir. Slattery said it will be a celebration of the vision of the fund’s founder. “We continue Governor Edison’s legacy by working to develop honorable leaders with an appreciation for the political, economic, and moral values for which the Founding Fathers fought the American Revolution,” he said. Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.
Then the question that needs answering is just who are the women's march supporting if the don't support women that are being suppressed and maligned as slaves? I seems clear to me the march for women's rights is self-serving on the part of a few at the top of their organization. The main goal here is they only want to persuade others to join their ranks of progressive socialist liberalism activists in redefining our rights and liberties from the point of view of an secularist ideology rather then by our Constitution that is God given. This video is from a person that believes the freedom to chose is the most import aspect of individual freedom, especially where women have no rights or freedoms. The author explains how the March for Women is wrong headed and activity ignoring the real problem. Women’s March Stays Silent on Saudi Arabia Allowing Women to Drive Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness /
King Salman bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia finally decided to end one of the world’s most oppressive policies against women, issuing a decree on Tuesday allowing women to drive.
In 2017, this is an incredibly big deal for women’s equality. In Saudi Arabia, women still need a male guardian’s permission to marry, divorce, travel, open a bank account, get a job, or have elective surgery.
Earning the right to drive is only a first step toward true equality, but it’s an important one. And ironically, the Women’s March was silent on the matter, despite pretending for the past year to care about women.
Read more about the hypocrisy of its silence here, or watch the video below.
And it's not just American Exceptionalism, Rush really believes America is Reagan's ''shining city on the hill'' granted to us by God as a beacon for individual freedom and liberty to the rest of the world caught up in the horrors of tyranny and suppression of the human spirit. Oh and by the way, Rush has more then 27 million listeners, not just 20 million. And that's just the number of listeners that admit they listen, there are millions that listen who would never admit it, even under the threats of death. Progressive democrats all.
That these three literary organization, among many others that are taking the lead to fight the progressive socialist liberal left is good news to those of us in the trenches. They explain how the progressives are the problem and not the solution to America's problems, let alone any kind of examples of truth in the news market place.
3 Proofs That the Conservative Movement Is Alive and Well Lee Edwards /
For those who think the conservative movement is in disarray and may be even close to cracking up, I call attention to three anniversaries being celebrated this week. These three anniversaries reflect organizations that have made a significant difference in our politics and our culture for half a century: the Media Research Center, The American Spectator, and the Fund for American Studies.
Led by the irrepressible Brent Bozell, the Media Research Center is marking its 30th anniversary of exposing the left-wing bias of the mass media by the simplest of methods—using their own words to hoist them high.
Rush believes in American Exceptionalism.
At its annual Dishonors Awards dinner, the Media Research Center presented the hysterical reactions of the networks’ finest to Donald Trump’s presidential victory. In their apocalyptic analysis, anchors and reporters alike did everything but urge their viewers to renounce their citizenship and move to Canada or the Cayman Islands without delay.
Rush Limbaugh, the King of Talk Radio with a weekly listening audience of 20 million, revealed that he first heard of Bozell while reading him in National Review, which was all the accreditation he needed. About the mainstream media, Limbaugh was to the point: “They’re dead wrong. They’re dead stupid.” Radio talk show host Mark Levin summed up the evening by describing MRC and Brent Bozell as “national treasures.”
For half a century, The American Spectator under the editorship of R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. has been slicing and dicing liberals and progressives like Bill and Hillary Clinton at the hands of accomplished polemicists like P. J. O’Rourke, Ben Stein, Patrick Buchanan, and Malcolm Muggeridge.
When others on the right hesitated, the Spectator welcomed neoconservatives like Irving Kristol to its pages. When the conservative movement waxed lackadaisical and split into factions following the Reagan years, Bob Tyrrell delivered a kick to its pants with his book, “The Conservative Crack-Up.”
A special favorite of the Spectator was The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page editor Robert Bartley, an adviser to the magazine at the time of his death in 2003.
At this year’s anniversary gala, the Spectator honored Bartley and featured remarks by Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus; Stein; and humorist Greg Gutfeld, host of “The Greg Gutfeld Show” on Fox News. The American Spectator has weathered financial storms and revolutionary changes in journalism, but is still publishing its Menckenesque insights into American politics—although now in digital rather than print form.
The academic empire of the 50-year-old Fund for American Studies, with its 11 institutes that span the globe from Washington, D.C., to Hong Kong, attest to the old saw that a good idea can have exceedingly good consequences. In 1967, former New Jersey Gov. Charles Edison—the son of the famed inventor Thomas Alva Edison—recruited Dr. Walter H. Judd, youth leader David R. Jones, political consultant Marvin Liebman, and editor/author William F. Buckley Jr. to build a program that would educate college students in American government, politics, and economics. The group approached Georgetown University professor Lev E. Dobriansky about sponsoring a summer institute on comparative and political and economic systems at his university. In 1970, 57 students attended the first institute.
Today, more than 1,000 students annually attend course credit programs at George Mason University in Washington, D.C., the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, and Chile. The programs cover economics and politics, political journalism, business and government affairs, philanthropy, and legal studies.
In addition, the fund sponsors other educational programs and conferences for students and professors throughout the year, including a 15-week academic and internship program each fall and spring in Washington, D.C., as well as the Walter H. Judd Freedom Award, presented annually to individuals who have advanced the cause of freedom in the United States and abroad.
Russian dissident and chess grand master Garry Kasparov will receive the 2017 Judd Award. The fund will also honor at its 50th anniversary banquet this year former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Stephen Hayes, editor-in-chief of The Weekly Standard.
When we consider the manifold contributions of the Fund for American Studies, The American Spectator, and the Media Research Center over the years and reflect that they are but a part of the conservative movement, we can rest assured that the movement is alive and well and resolute in its goal to preserve ordered liberty in America, both for this generation and generations to come.
I wonder how many players understand why they are taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem at football games? I think many do understand and sincerely believe what hey are doing is okay. It just that what they believe to be the truth isn't true. Facts are nonsense. It's always the seriousness of the charge that matters. It's the placard waving protestors, the chanting or it's the kneeling on the playing fields. And it's not just the football players, it's everyone on the left side of reality. But it doesn't matter given the televised corruption of our national anthem that is taking place on the football field when the only thing that does matter is these players and owners of NFL teams have what they believe is the biggest club to beat their personal agenda into helpless witnesses. Only time will tell just how this will all turn out for the NFL, but I believe firmly it will not be what the kneelers how they want it to end. NFL Players Started This Controversy, Not Trump Dennis Prager / @DennisPrager /
Because the left dominates the news media, the entertainment media, and academia, Americans are swimming—actually, drowning—in an ocean of lies. Here are a few examples:
America is racist.
America oppresses its minorities.
America oppresses women.
Universities have a culture of rape.
There are more than two genders.
All cultures are morally and culturally equal.
Hurricanes Harvey and Irma were caused, or made more intense, by global warming.
Israel is the villain in the Middle East conflict.
Western civilization is a euphemism for “white supremacy.”
The latest lie of the left is that, with regard to the conflict between the NFL and President Donald Trump, the president is the “divisive” party.
Whenever people on the left tell one of these lies, I always wonder if they really believe it. I have concluded that they nearly always do. Which is more frightening than if they knew they weren’t telling the truth. With people who know they aren’t telling the truth there is always hope. But there is no hope for people who believe their lies. What other conclusion could any fair-minded person reach when people say with a straight face that Trump is the divisive party with regard to his conflict with players refusing to stand for the national anthem?
Apparently, the question, “Who started it?” means nothing to the journalists, politicians, and NFL players, coaches, and owners who call the president “divisive.” So, before discussing Trump’s reaction, our fellow Americans on the left need to answer some pretty simple questions:
Has the behavior of those athletes been divisive? Is kneeling while tens of thousands of people are standing divisive? Is publicly showing contempt for the American flag for which innumerable Americans risked their lives, were terribly injured, or died, divisive? The answers are so obvious that if someone denies that those actions are divisive, it inevitably raises another question: Why would anyone deny it? Here are three likely reasons:
First, most people on the left think that they are centrists, or at most center-liberal. Therefore, they deem whatever they believe to be normative and deem whoever differs with them to be divisive and ultimately extremist.
This is true for every issue. Take same-sex marriage. Redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex was the most radical change in the history of the family—far more radical than, say, banning polygamy. Yet, I have never read or heard a person who favored same-sex marriage acknowledge that this was a radical change, not to mention divisive.
On the contrary, people on the left believe that all those who wanted to retain the only definition of marriage any society has ever had—the union between the two sexes—are divisive and extremist.
Likewise, in the eyes of the left—the media, academia, and the Democratic Party—it is not professional athletes who have refused to stand for the national anthem who are divisive. It is the president and all others who condemn the players for doing so.
Was the president’s rhetoric over the top? I believe some of it was—specifically, calling the players “sons of b——.” No politician, let alone the president of the United States, should use expletives publicly. But if the president had sharply rebuked the players and the NFL using soaring rhetoric, the left would have similarly accused him of being divisive.
Imagine the president had begun his comments by saying something along these lines:
To see professional athletes publicly dishonor the flag for which hundreds of thousands of Americans have died, the flag that millions of Americans have seen drape the coffin of their child, their spouse, their sibling, their parent, or other loved one is as morally repulsive as it un-American. Of course, these players have the right of free speech—and so do I, and that is precisely the right I am exercising now.
Had he spoken that way, would the left not have characterized him as divisive?
There is a second reason the left portrays the president, not the players, as divisive. They agree with the players that the flag represents a systemically and socially racist country. How could they not? The left is the primary reason many Americans believe that America, the least racist multiracial country in history, is a racist country.
A third reason the left calls the president, not the players, “divisive” is that the left will say anything about those with whom it differs. The left sees language as a tool—not with which to express truth but with which to defeat its enemies. From Stalin calling Trotsky a fascist to the American media calling Trump and his supporters “Nazis” and “white supremacists,” lying about one’s political enemies is as part of leftism as hydrogen and oxygen are of water.
And why have non-leftist NFL coaches and owners also called the president “divisive?” Because if they told the truth—that the players are the divisive party here—they would have no team.
So, then, if you agree with the players, say so. But have the honesty to acknowledge that it is they—the first players in American sports history to refuse to stand during the national anthem—that are the divisive ones. Honesty feels almost as good as fighting conservatives. Try it.
Again, I wonder if the NFL knows who voted for Trump and why? It is apparent that the NFL owners and the players are unaware of this fact that the people have decided the corruption that is destroying our society can not and will not be tolerated any longer. Oh No! Who Knew? The people of this great country are now in control and deciding the future. I love football and I wait all spring to get the season going, even though this means 'climate change' is coming as well. Not something that I look forward to. Still, now my fond attachment to my NFL team and my heroes that demonstrated their considerable skills on the field, have now demonstrated on the field of play their ignorance of just who I am and why I voted for Donald Trump. The NFL and it's workers, the football players are disrespecting my country, my flag and disrespecting me. I love this county and what it stands for and to have so many take it upon themselves, in such a public forum as on national television while thousands of NFL 'customers' watch, telling me I am wrong in what I believe. I am terribly disheartened and angered that this is happening to the one place I thought would be exempt from progressive leftwing ignorant politics. And as a consequence, I and many others will leave the sport behind this year. Hopefully things will straighten out for the next season. Common sense will replace ignorance? Still, I believe some changes are just too difficult as witness the aftermath of the last election among the progressive left. I see only disaster will be the end result for the NFL. Here’s How Much Money the NFL Rakes in From Taxpayers Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman /
The National Football League is now plunged into politics as players throughout the sport kneel for the national anthem and President Donald Trump continues to rebuke them publicly.
Undoubtedly, the situation has left many fans and non-fans of the league conflicted or angry.
This fiasco may, however, open the eyes of the public to a serious and generally unchecked issue: billionaire NFL owners sponging enormous amounts of money from taxpayers through crony capitalist schemes.
The fact is that a business that raked in $14 billion in revenue in 2016 is heavily subsidized by local, state, and federal money based on dubious claims about stimulating the economy.
The problem is rampant.
One report on Watchdog.org said that over the past two decades, the NFL has raked in about $7 billion of taxpayer money to spend on stadium renovation and building. Another study from the Brookings Institution showed that federal taxpayers have subsidized the construction of 36 stadiums at a cost of over $3.2 billion since 2000.
Michael Sargent, an infrastructure expert at The Heritage Foundation, wrote about how sports teams use specially crafted tax breaks to get the public to finance their massive projects. “Tax-exempt municipal bonds are typically reserved for public-use projects such as bridges, water systems, and other infrastructure,” Sargent wrote for The Daily Signal. “Yet because of a loophole in the tax code, private-use stadiums can take advantage of this tax break, and have done so prolifically.” In fact, only a handful of NFL and other major league teams use privately-financed venues to host their games.
It would seem after sinking enormous investments into sports franchises, cities would reap serious financial benefits in return.
But this isn’t the case at all.
Research from George Mason University has shown that not only do communities gain almost no economic benefits from subsidized sports teams, but some findings “indicate harmful effects of sports on per capita income, wage and salary disbursements, and wages per job.”
Recently released polls show national anthem protests are deeply unpopular with the American people, but polls also show that the taxpayer funding of sports is also widely disliked. When likely voters in Nevada were asked if they favored or opposed using $500 million in taxpayer dollars to fund a stadium for the Oakland Raiders to move to Las Vegas, they overwhelmingly said “no.”
According to the KTNV-TV 13 Action News/Rasmussen Reports poll, 60 percent of Nevada voters opposed the funding, and only 28 percent supported it.
Given the massive discontent over national anthem kneeling and rampant politicization of the once unifying sport of football, perhaps now Americans will turn a more skeptical eye toward how their sports teams rely on public money and actually do something about it.
There are some in Congress who have taken notice.
“In America, if you want to play sports, you’re free to do so. If you want to protest, you’re free to do so,” Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said in a Tuesday speech, according to The Washington Post. “But you should do so on your own time and on your own dime.”
Recent bipartisan legislation on Capitol Hill aimed to strip federal funding from sports teams. A bill sponsored by Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., would prevent teams from using municipal bonds that are exempt from federal taxes. Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., introduced a similar bill in the House. Lankford said in a statement in June:
The federal government is responsible for a lot of important functions, but financing sports stadiums for multimillion—sometimes billion—dollar franchises is definitely not one of them. Using billions of federal taxpayer dollars for the subsidization of private stadiums when we have real infrastructure needs in our country is not a good way to prioritize a limited amount of funds.
This movement has picked up steam in recent weeks, according to Kerry Picket of The Daily Caller.
On Tuesday, Gaetz became the lead sponsor of legislation that would end the tax-exempt status of professional sports leagues. NFL and other sports teams have a deep financial interest in getting taxpayers to pay their bills, so it will take a widespread concerted effort on the part of the public to end this gravy train.
Since NFL billionaire owners have gone out of their way to accommodate millionaire players in standing down for the national anthem, perhaps taxpaying Americans should start withholding money from the privileged and let them all stand on their own two feet. Now may be the perfect time to finally do it. This article has been updated to include legislation sponsored by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.
The prevailing attitude today by those that believe they are the smartest people in the room, and they have no problem explaining this to anyone that will listen is, 'When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise''. Go with the flow. Go along to get along or it's happening by design. It's much like trying to raise a tiger from a cub and have it live with you in the house, turning it out at night allowing it to roam free in the neighborhood. The tiger will always behave according to natural instincts, it's in the DNA to be a tiger. The consequences that follow will be predictable. For university officials and our national leaders it's much the same. To believe allowing people that are by nature criminal to roam freely among the university students, and the civil population, have to understand the consequences of their collective actions will be disastrous. Right? Yes, they do understand as they, the officials, for the most part, came from the same bolt of cloth as the criminals, it's just that the officials have a title that tells the rest of us to believe they have only the best intentions to bring civility, clarity and common sense to their situations, even though we see only violence and chaos on campus running wild. This will not end well as many parents will seek alternatives to violence for their children's education, and therefore leaving many universities to fail causing higher education to become questionable as a way to improve one's future.
What will be left will. The result will be empty buildings that once housed the future for the young, and those institutions that remain will be continually attackedwithwords, sticks and stones.
Not a Day Care Walter E. Williams /
Our college-age population consists mostly of 18- to 30-year-olds, and likewise our armed forces.
I wonder whether they shared common responses to the 2016 presidential election.
Many college administrators provided students with therapy dogs, play dough, coloring books, bubbles, videos of frolicking kittens and puppies, and soft music. They even canceled classes and postponed exams so that their 18- to 30-year-old snowflakes could better cope with the election results. There are numerous internet photos and videos of these youngsters screaming and in outright grief and panic.
Here’s my question: Were our military leaders as accommodating as college administrators? Did commanding officers of our aircraft carriers provide their young people with therapy dogs, play dough, crayons and coloring books, and soft music? Were sea training exercises canceled?
Were similar accommodations ordered by commanders of our special forces, such as the Army Rangers, Navy SEALs, and Delta Force?
I’m guessing and hoping that our military leaders, unlike many college administrators, have not lost their minds.
That brings me to this column’s title: “Not a Day Care.” That’s the title of a new book written by Dr. Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University. Piper reminds us that today’s law students are tomorrow’s lawyers and judges. Based on what they are taught, there’s no mystery why lawyers and judges seek to legislate from the bench. Students who want to rid college curricula of dead old white men such as Plato, Aristotle, Voltaire, and Kant will be on tomorrow’s school boards or be professors. This doesn’t bode well for our nation’s future. Lack of Leadership Has Crippled Our Universities
Many colleges have become hotbeds of what might be labeled as enlightened racism. Students at the University of California, Berkeley created “safe spaces” for people of color. Resident advisers at Scripps College posted two signs to educate students about “emotional labor,” one aimed at white students and one for “people of color and marginalized backgrounds.”
University of Michigan students demanded a “designated space on central campus for black students and students of color to organize and do social justice work.” That was after the university caved to student demands and spent $10 million to build a multicultural center.
In Chapter 6, Piper discusses an attack by a Muslim Somali student at Ohio State University. Fortunately, he was shot dead by police officers before he could add to his toll of 11 injured students.
The Islamic State group praised him and called him one of its soldiers.
The administration responded to the incident by inviting Nathan Lean, author of “The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims,” to lecture about Islamophobia. A few days after the attack, protesters gathered on campus to read the names of people of color killed by police in the previous two months. The Muslim Somali student made the list, going from a terrorist to a victim virtually overnight.
Piper asks whether it is possible to imagine President Franklin D. Roosevelt taking to the radio waves after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to announce a forum on diversity and prejudice. Purchase Everett Piper’s book, “Not a Day Care: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth”
Among the many other ugly things going on at our universities is the withering attack on free speech. Diversity is the highest goal of students and professors who openly detest those with whom they disagree. The content of a man’s character is no longer as important as the color of his skin or his sex or his political loyalties. This intolerance has won such respectability that even politicians have little shame expressing it.
In 2014, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo basically told people who disagreed with him to leave the state. He said people who defend traditional marriage, are pro-life, and are anti-gun control “have no place in the state of New York.”
That’s progressive ideological fascism that ought to be put down by freedom-loving Americans.
Piper’s “Not a Day Care” is a short but powerful book by a university president who is not afraid to maintain civility and common sense, traits all too rare among today’s university administrators.
The Trump agenda for a 'new America' moves forward. It appears that the 'New President' is not only making 'America great again' but also reinventing our country after 8 years of decline. It seems common sense is making a come back that will bring our country back on course to prosperity.
Our heritage is based on the rule of law and not some personal agenda and religious ideology where the few in power control the lives of the population. And this is why Donald Trump is president.
The people understand, the voters believed that the 'Barack way' was a disastrous and showed him and his 'transformation' the highway.
3 Key Elements of Trump’s New Travel Ban Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH /
President Donald Trump’s new restrictions on travel from certain nations adapt to the latest threats and affect countries without Muslim majorities, but face legal challenges similar to previous ones.
On Sunday, Trump issued a presidential proclamation on what he calls “extreme vetting” that builds on his March 6 executive order that barred immigration from six countries. And late Monday, the Supreme Court canceled arguments based on the older policy.
The new travel ban adds North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad to the list and drops Sudan, for a total of eight affected countries. Remaining under the ban are Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.
Here, in three pieces, are some key differences in the new executive action and a look at what’s ahead on extreme vetting.
1. What Happens Next?
Trump’s executive action will last for 180 days. By that point, the Department of Homeland Security, Justice Department, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence are required to submit a new report suggesting adjustments if necessary.
The previous ban blocked entry from the listed nations into the United States for 90 days and prevented refugees from there for 120 days. Because of court challenges, the 90-day ban resulting from the March order did not go into effect until late June.
The new policy includes requirements on issuing electronic passports, sharing criminal data, reporting lost and stolen passports, and sharing more information on travelers designed to help verify the identities and national security risks of those trying to enter the United States. Foreign governments will have to cooperate with the U.S. government to identify suspected terrorists and share identity-related information, according to a White House press release. 2. Changes in Policy
The order Trump signed in March suspended entry into the United States by foreign nationals of six countries of concern; the new one increases that number to eight nations. The order required the Department of Homeland Security to review other nations’ information-sharing practices regarding nationals traveling to the U.S., and to recommend improvements to the president. Officials dropped Sudan from the list because of improved information sharing with the United States.
“The first policy was very much a pre-emptive action based on the threat,” James Jay Carafano, a vice president in charge of national security issues at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “This is their own policy based on their own assessment, not inherited information from the previous administration.” “The review of this should be dynamic because the threat is dynamic,” Carafano said. 3. Pending Legal Challenges
The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear oral arguments for and against the travel ban on Oct. 10. On Monday afternoon, however, the court announced the arguments would not be heard that day and asked parties involved in the challenge to submit new briefs. Opposition groups already seemed eager to fight the latest policy.
“President Trump campaigned on excluding Muslims, and began his presidency banning Muslims from the U.S. Now he is expanding the ban to other immigrant communities that he expressed deep-seated prejudice towards,” Debbie Almontaser, president of the Muslim Community Network and board member of the Yemeni American Merchants Association, said in a statement Monday.
“His bias, bigotry, and discrimination [against] communities of color continue to seep into his policies in violation of our Constitution, and have resulted in disrespecting our country’s history, laws, and values,” Almontaser said.
Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the previous executive order on the travel ban, said nothing changes with the new policy. “The fact that Trump has added North Korea—with few visitors to the U.S.—and a few government officials from Venezuela doesn’t obfuscate the real fact that the administration’s order is still a Muslim ban,” Romero said in a formal statement Sunday. “President Trump’s original sin of targeting Muslims cannot be cured by throwing other countries onto his enemies list.”
However, the addition of Venezuela and North Korea could make a difference, since they are not Muslim-majority countries, said John Malcolm, a lawyer who heads the Institute for Constitutional Government at The Heritage Foundation. “This could be another reason the Supreme Court might kick the case back to the lower courts for reflection,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal.
But, the addition of new countries isn’t the only reason the policy will have a stronger standing in court, Malcolm said. He said he believes the odds are “sharply more in favor” of reversing lower court orders against the travel ban. “There is more detail to the process used to come up with this list that was not outlined in the previous order,” Malcolm said. “I believe if the case reaches the courts on the merits, the president will be in good shape,” he said. This report has been updated to reflect the Supreme Court’s decision to ask for new legal briefs.
It's the new reality where anything that is negative and corrupting of civil society is okay, no matter how destructive to the country and the surviving generations to come. What we see in the streets today, and now on the football field is the 'brave new world' of progressive socialist liberalism where hate for civility is the new day and the rule of law is obsolete. Now projected fear and intimidation by masked thugs that use the violence of burning and destroying as law. Where once community leaders actually believed in supporting law enforcement, but now it's just easier to allow the buildings to burn and stores looted. To stop the domestic terrorist criminals in the streets would only cause more harm the good. Maybe worse, the community leaders believe what's going on in the streets and our universities is better then what we have now? The new brave world means no one has to take responsibility for anything.
How a Radical Left-Wing Historian Birthed the Anti-Columbus Crusade Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / Confederate statues aren’t the only ones to come under siege from protesters. Christopher Columbus, the Spanish-backed Italian explorer who discovered the Americas, is also being attacked on a wide scale. Activists and cities around the country are now working to change the holiday made in his name and are working to remove monuments in his likeness. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has even called for a commission that will review potentially removing the over 70-foot-tall column dedicated to Columbus that currently stands in Columbus Circle.
And Portland, Maine’s City Council recently designated the second Monday of October “Indigenous People’s Day” and has elected to stop celebrating Columbus Day. This is quite a turnaround from when Columbus was almost universally admired. Ronald Reagan once said of the famed explorer:
He is justly admired as a brilliant navigator, a fearless man of action, a visionary who opened the eyes of an older world to an entirely new one. Above all, he personifies a view of the world that many see as quintessentially American: not merely optimistic, but scornful of the very notion of despair.
So, why is this once uniting figure who stood for the New World and immigrants suddenly under attack? Sadly, much of the modern hostility to Columbus can be traced to the work of a far-left historian, Howard Zinn, whose book, “A People’s History of the United States,” has left an oversized mark on American K-12 and college students. However, Zinn claimed to turn the pro-Columbus narrative on its head, writing that Columbus was essentially a genocidal monster who paved the way for greedy, profit-seeking capitalists from the Old World to destroy and pillage the peaceful indigenous people of the New World. “Behind the English invasion of North America,” Zinn wrote, “behind their massacre of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private profit.” One doesn’t have to embrace all of the Italian explorer’s actions to appreciate what he accomplished and how it transformed the world for good. Historians have certainly pushed back on Zinn’s caricature. Professor Carol Delaney of Stanford University has criticized Zinn’s history and defended Columbus as devoutly religious, and not simply a man committed to pillaging and plunder. She said:
His relations with the natives tended to be benign. He liked the natives and found them to be very intelligent … Columbus strictly told the crew not to do things like maraud, or rape, and instead to treat the native people with respect. There are many examples in his writings where he gave instructions to this effect. Most of the time when injustices occurred, Columbus wasn’t even there.
But Zinn goes even further. His narrative is based on the idea that not only was Columbus a villain, but the product of his discovery was also an evil. His book follows this in maligning the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, and America’s role in World War II, among numerous other individuals and events in our history. Of the Founding Fathers, Zinn wrote:
They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.
Notions of liberty and timeless principles were dismissed by Zinn as simply the tools of tyrants, which is, of course, the point of his book. It is a tale of oppressors and oppressed, wrapped in Marxist historical theories. “A People’s History” is filled with half-truths, ideological distortions, and outright fabrications, yet it is still widely used in American schools.
This is a shame, as he is misleading future generations through his deceiving, but influential work. Even the far-left magazine, New Republic, conceded that Zinn was a poor historian who did a disservice to his readers, saying:
In writing as or about radicals, historians owe it to their readers to include the bad with the good, the ignoble with the noble—not in the service of ‘balance’ but in the pursuit of intellectual honesty. The most regrettable aspect of Howard Zinn’s full and lusty life is not that he chose to ignore this responsibility. It is that he never seemed aware of it in the first place.
“A People’s History” is terrible history, but it is effective ideological propaganda. And when it’s the only thing students are reading, there’s no wonder that activists are taking to the streets to attack American figures of the past.
Is this true how things work in our county? Don't know but it's outrageous and if it's unbelievable then it must be true. As anything that is under government control has to a bastardization of realty.
Subject:Why many don't marry these days
European socialism, USA style.Why Nobody Works Anymore (except those who support the other half!!!)
The new American way of life…get on board...For a guy and his girlfriend with two kids, all you have to do is follow these proven steps:
1. Don't marry her!
2. Always use your mom's address to get your mail.
3. The guy buys a house.
4. The guy rents out house to his girlfriend with his two kids.
5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home.
6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare, so guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance.
7. Girlfriend gets to go to college for free for being a single mother.
8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps.
9. Girlfriend gets a free cell phone.
10. Girlfriend gets free utilities.
11. Guy moves into home, but continues to use mom's address for his mail.
12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims the other kid on their tax forms. Now both get to claim head of of household at $1800 credit.
13. Girlfriend gets $1800 a month disability for having a "bad back" and never has to work again.
This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people!
A married couple with a stay-at-home mom yields $0 dollars.
An unmarried couple with a stay-at-home mom nets $21,600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free Obamacare + $6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 Pell grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits!
Any idea why our country is over $20 trillion in debt and half the population is sitting around letting the other half pay their way?
It become readily apparent that the law is only as good as those that believe it is in the best interest of the civil society in which the law exists. That the law for illegal immigrants that commit crimes against the people, the citizens of society is to be ignored, begs the common sense and good logic of those that are charged to inforce those particular laws. That organized and elected officials will take it upon them selves to personally decide the law, as it was formulated, written and voted on and passed by the people's representatives no longer is valid assumes a power not found in the great state of Texas or the Constitution of the Untied States. The sanctuary polices of certain city officials are ideology and therefore, in the light of laws that have gone before, these personal agendas to make policy is corrupting the law and therefore must not stand. This court decision is a good first step to being law and order back to reality. That the appeals court will follow through in the finale decision is the hope for common sense and the law will prevail. Texas Wins the Second Round on Sanctuary Cities Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky /
Texas has just won the second (procedural) round in the fight over the state Legislature’s attempt to punish cities that implement sanctuary policies. A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed on Monday key portions of the injunction issued in September by a federal judge in San Antonio that prevented the state from implementing major parts of the law.
As explained here, the 2017 statute applies to illegal aliens arrested or otherwise lawfully detained by local law enforcement. The core parts of the law ban Texas cities from prohibiting or “materially limit[ing]” local law enforcement from:
Notifying federal immigration officials that an illegal alien has been arrested.
Cooperating with immigration authorities (including honoring detainer warrants on illegal aliens issued by federal authorities).
Allowing federal immigration officers to enter local jails to conduct investigations of criminal illegal aliens.
The lower court federal judge had enjoined Texas from implementing the second and third provisions. However, the 5th Circuit issued a stay of that portion of the injunction.
Holding that Texas was likely to succeed on the merits of those two provisions, the 5th Circuit lifted the injunction until the appeals court has a chance to consider the merits of the case. Otherwise, the “state necessarily suffers the irreparable harms of denying the public interest in the enforcement of its laws.” Prior case law holds that when it is a state appealing, the state’s “interest and harm merges with that of the public.”
According to the appeals court, the lower court judge misinterpreted federal law when he enjoined the Texas provision on cooperation and assistance with federal immigration authorities. The statute he cited, 8 U.S.C. §1357(g), actually “provides for such assistance.”
So Texas can “prohibit” local jurisdictions from engaging in such behavior, although the injunction remains in place on the phrase “materially limits” because that phrase needs “clarifying.” But being able to “prohibit” gives Texas what it needs in order to stop these sanctuary policies.
The appeals court also threw out the injunction on the section of the Texas law that requires local law enforcement to “comply with, honor, and fulfill” any immigration detainer request issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The 5th Circuit panel noted that local jurisdictions would not have to comply with a detainer request if the detainee “provide[s] proof” of lawful immigration status. Further, unlike the view of the lower court judge, this provision of the Texas law only “mandates that local agencies cooperate according to existing ICE detainer practice and law.”
This means that the most important provisions of the Texas statute that are intended to stop sanctuary policies from being implemented locally are still in force, and will remain in force until the 5th Circuit issues a decision on the merits. That is vital to the public safety of the citizens of Texas.
Sanctuary policies create sanctuaries for criminals.
According to PJ Media, an unreleased internal report from the Texas Department of Public Safety revealed that from 2008 to 2014, criminal aliens committed over 600,000 crimes in the state, including almost 3,000 murders. Yet cities like Dallas and Austin, which are among the challengers in this litigation, are telling their residents that they would rather release criminal illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes such as assault, burglary, sexual assault, theft, and even homicide into their local communities (where they can victimize even more people) than call federal immigration authorities so that they can be picked up and deported.
As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “Enforcing immigration law helps prevent dangerous criminals from being released into Texas communities.” We can only hope the 5th Circuit realizes this when issuing its final decision on this Texas law.
The NFL has willingly and delusionaily stumbled into what might be the fatal blow that will change the league now and into the foreseeable future. It might not appears to be dramatic at first but the anger will smolder and eventually erupt to bring chaos and conflict that no one actually wants. The fans, the people are not fooled by the ideological politics that is occurring on the field and in the media, to force them into believing what they know has nothing to do with enjoying the game, but a false premise of America being guilty of the 'sins of their fathers'. The players believe enslavement of the black people in history, and attacks now on the black population is the basis for their action on the playing field of the NFL and in the streets of civil society. That is, America is guilty of a systematic racial hatred of the black community which they say is proven by the police attacks on what they also proclaim are innocent black citizens. What the truth actually is has been proven, for the most part, to be a false assumption but works to bring a false legitimacy to the cause of systemic racism in America. The people are not fooled and will react accordingly showing their disapproval through turning off the television and staying home. Both will be catastrophic events for the game of football and for civil discourse. This can only end badly for everyone on the field of play and in our ever day life. The flag of the country has been disrespected and the people believe they have been disrespected as well. The Hypocrisy of the NFL Genevieve Wood /@genevievewood/
Genevieve Wood wants to know why the Dallas Cowboys weren’t allowed by the NFL to wear police decals in honor of those police officers killed in Dallas last year, but players are permitted to not stand for the national anthem.
Plus, she interviews two Americans outside a Washington, D.C., sports bar about their views on football and the national anthem.
Watch the video : https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/videos/924535037712449/
Having already downed a few power drinks, she turns around, faces him, looks him straight in the eye and says, "Listen here, good looking. I will screw anybody, anytime, anywhere, their place, my place, in the car, front door, back door, on the ground, standing up, sitting down, naked or with clothes on... It doesn't matter to me. I just love it. "His eyes now wide with interest, he responds, "No kidding... I'm in Government too. Are you federal or state?"
The old ''saw'' about the rich always winning in any kind of tax cuts by the democrats, has been proven to be nonsense over the decades starting with Ronald Reagan and even George Bush when they introduced tax cuts that brought millions of new good paying jobs and increased wealth for the working class.
It all really boils down to the individual freedom to chose as a result of personal prosperity. Once the individual can chose for themselves what direction they want to go as a result of having the necessary resources to make independent choices, the political landscape changes. Independent individuals spells disaster for progressives. Government Scorekeepers Are Wrong. Corporate Tax Reform Would Mostly Help Workers, Not the Rich. Adam Michel /@adamnmichel/
Politicians who don’t want tax reform are busy making the case that cutting taxes for business will not help workers. Those politicians are backed up by government scorekeepers who, unfortunately, have their economic analysis exactly backward.
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.
Businesses invest money in their workplace so that their employees can be more productive. Part of this involves paying higher wages to employees who become more productive and are in higher demand from other firms who are making similar investments.
American corporations pay a federal corporate income tax rate of 35 percent—one of the highest in the world. High corporate taxes discourage this kind of investment in American workplaces, thus killing the potential for workers to earn higher wages. Most of the cost of corporate taxes—between 75 and 100 percent—is passed on to workers in the form of lower wages. This fact is shown in the results of 10 separate economic studies.
On the flip side of the coin, American households would share in the benefits of a corporate tax cut in receiving higher wages. This is where government scorekeepers like the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office get it wrong.
In contradiction to the relevant economic literature, they maintain that only one quarter of the corporate tax is passed on to workers. The other 75 percent is assumed to go to owners of capital—the corporate owners.
This misguided view is posing an obstacle to tax reform, as government modeling assumptions have a bias toward viewing the wealthy as beneficiaries of corporate tax reform. They do not properly account for the benefits that will accrue to lower-income wage earners. Contrary to what these government models would suggest, slashing the corporate tax rate would help the poor far more than the rich.
A 20-point reduction of the corporate income tax—from 35 percent to 15 percent—could boost the relative market incomes of the poorest Americans by 2.4 percent. That’s $365 for a household that earns $15,000 a year, and more than twice the 1.1 percent increase for the richest 1 percent.
And that’s not even accounting for the economic growth that would compound over time as a result of tax reform. When accounting for that growth, others have estimated that wages could increase by as much as 28 percent.
When Congress finally releases a detailed tax reform plan, the distributional analysis could make or break its political viability. If government scorekeepers continue to assume that owners of capital will benefit the most from tax reform, they will mislead the public.
It would be a shame if backward assumptions misinformed the public and obstructed this historic opportunity to update the U.S. tax code. The current corporate tax code is largely responsible for our anemic economic growth, the historically low rate of business start-ups, and reduced economic dynamism.
Across the U.S., corporations employ 55 million hardworking people who create products for global and domestic markets. A lower corporate income tax rate will benefit not only those 55 million Americans, but all Americans, as increased investment and job creation would put upward pressure on all wages.
Moreover, by attracting business and investment back to the U.S. with a more favorable tax environment, tax reform will renew America’s place as a top global destination to do business and hire workers. That’s a change that all lawmakers who care about the well-being of American families should embrace.
That the increase in religious discrimination has become such an issue over the last 6 years can be understood by the racial discrimination claims that have exploded over the same period. The prevailing national attitude established over the last six years to transform the country is having a terrible effect on civil society. It appears that the fire for religious intolerance is burring so hot now can be seen in many stake ways, and maybe one of the worst is democrat Senator Diane Feinstein and democrat Senator Durbin question a court nominee about how her religion will effect her decision making. The Constitution of The United States has become worthless. Wonder no longer about where this all started and gained momentum, and how it is now out of control, in our courts, our universities and in our streets. And worse yet, many that should be outraged and fighting back are standing by silent. Documented Cases of Religious Discrimination Jump 15% Ian Snively /
Freedom of religion isn’t as protected as some Americans may think. In fact, reported attacks on religion are increasing in the U.S. and, according to First Liberty Institute, the evidence is undeniable. The 2017 edition of a First Liberty report called “Undeniable” shows threats to Americans’ First Amendment rights spanning the past five years. The number of documented incidents of religious discrimination grew 15 percent in 2016 compared with 2015. The number of incidents increased by 133 percent, from 600 to more than 1,400, between 2011 and 2016. “We’re in a battle right now for religious freedom in the future of our country,” First Liberty President Kelly Shackelford said in a Facebook Live video Sept. 12.
Justin Butterfield, editor-in-chief of the study, said in an interview with The Daily Signal that much of the data comes from court filings from across the country. The research team also collects reports from news outlets and other organizations, including the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist group. Butterfield, who has a law degree from Harvard, said researchers specifically looked for instances where someone was illegally restricted from, or prosecuted for, practicing his or her faith. “Undeniable” divides cases into four categories: attacks on religion in public areas and the workplace; in schools; in churches and ministries; and in the military.
First Liberty, a nonprofit legal organization established in 1997, focuses on defending religious freedom in court cases. It has participated and provided information in court cases at all levels, including the Supreme Court. It also publishes reports educating Americans about the relevance of the First Amendment. First Liberty began research in 2004, when Shackelford and others testified during a Senate hearing on discrimination and intolerance based on religion. Two senators, the late Democrat Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and John Cornyn of Texas, got in touch with Shackelford, wanting to know how prevalent the issue was. Butterfield said Kennedy and Cornyn asked First Liberty to collect more reports of attacks on religion. The organization first published “Undeniable” in 2012, and has published a new edition every year since. One court case in 2012 that he found particularly appalling, Butterfield recalled, was Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC. In it, a teacher fired by a Lutheran school sued under the Americans With Disabilities Act, even though churches have the freedom to choose leaders. When asked why he thought more cases of religious intolerance were emerging, Butterfield said that now more than ever in America, the “concept of religious freedom is unpopular.” Some Americans, he said, are “increasingly hostile to religious beliefs that differ from their own.” But what separates the U.S. from other countries, he said, is Americans’ persistence in fighting for their faith. “When people stand up to their religious liberties, they win,” Butterfield said.
I'm an American citizen and I love this country that has given me everything. I believe that America is the last hope in this world for Democracy and Freedom. She must be defended at all costs!
