Green Energy Demands : Pay More and Get Less

What ever happened to the free market? If solar, wind and biofuel energy is good, why not let them compete with fossil fuel energy resources on a historical basis? What works now and what are the possibilities for the future. Fossil energy works and has proven on many occasions that it doesn't have an impact on the environment, especially natural gas. Even coal is now a workable alternative to ''green'' energy.

So why the big push?? Can it be just a very small elite group of people who demand control of all options that are available for the population to use for prosperity and the pursuit of the individual freedom to chose their own outcomes??

Can the agenda be that simple and sinister? Progressive socialist liberals know they must first bring the population to the realization of having fewer options open to them for prosperity as the new reality. 

With fossil fuels providing more the 75% of all energy use and growing at more the 8% per year, exactly how will demanding the nation use less fossil energy and more renewable energy sources going to support our ever expanding demand for energy?

And that's the key. The progressive liberals don't want an expanding economy resulting in more individual prosperity. Prosperity kills dependency and therefore kills liberal socialism. The power base and ideology of socialsit liberal democrats. 

Who knew? The push for ''clean'' energy is obvious to anyone that is paying attention. It's simple the power to control.

Green Energy Mandates Could Double Your Electric Bills

Stephen Moore / @StephenMoore / Andy Vanderplas / October 30, 2018

Business and homeowner utility costs could double in many states if environmental groups succeed in enacting draconian solar and wind power mandates in states across the country.  Yet these mandates will have almost no impact in cleaning the air or reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In Arizona and Nevada, voters will decide on Nov. 6 whether to adopt renewable mandates requiring local utilities to buy at least 50 percent of their electric power from green energy—mostly, wind and solar power.

At least a dozen other states are set to ramp up their mandatory standards (also called “renewable portfolio standards”) in 2019. California is set to move to 60 percent legally mandated renewable energy by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045.

These mandates come with a steep price to American families and businesses. Residents in states with existing high mandates must often pay between 50 percent and 100 percent more on their electric bills than residents of states where utilities are free to rely on the market and purchase electric power from the lowest-cost sources—often coal, natural gas, or nuclear power.

Because lower-income households spend five to 10 times more as a share of their incomes on energy than do high-income households, high renewable portfolio standards are a regressive—and unduly burdensome—tax on the poor.

Ironically, these green initiatives are usually sponsored by billionaire liberal funders, such as investor Tom Steyer of California.

While the natural growth of renewable energy sources is a positive development, mandates are an economically disastrous method that crowds out the market for affordable electricity.

Today, the United States produces more than 75 percent of its electricity from natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. Less than 10 percent comes from solar and wind power.

Given the massive federal subsidies of more than $150 billion between 2009 and 2014 to the wind and solar industries, that is an amazingly small percentage. Comparing the states with the most stringent renewable portfolio standards (25 percent or more) with the states with low ones (10 percent or less), and then with states with none, reveals a pattern.

States with high renewable portfolio standards have electric power rates that are about 27 percent per kilowatt hour more expensive than states with low ones, and about 50 percent higher than states without them.

The Heartland Institute estimates costs could total an extra $1,000 per year per household, compared with current electricity costs, at the proposed rate increase in Arizona.  This could mean tens of thousands of dollars of higher costs for a business, depending on energy usage. For manufacturers, it could mean $100,000 or more of extra costs.

Lower-income families would be most adversely affected by stricter green energy requirements. This is because poorer households typically pay about seven times more as a share of their income in energy costs than do wealthier families.   Middle-class families pay at least twice as high a share of their income in energy bills than do the rich.

One of the critical flaws of renewable energy requirements is that they almost all squeeze out two of the most dominant and cleanest forms of energy used across the country—natural gas and nuclear power.  But from an environmental and clean air standpoint, and for the purposes of reducing greenhouse gases that may be linked to climate change, this distinction makes no sense.

It appears simply to be a multibillion-dollar corporate welfare giveaway to the solar and wind industries at the expense of ratepayers.

Even coal that is burned in Arizona, Nevada, and other states is much cleaner today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. All of this is evidenced by the dramatic improvement in air quality nationally over the past 35 years.  Only a small percentage of this clean air progress is due to renewable energy, because over most of this period, wind and solar power have been fairly inconsequential sources of U.S. energy production.

Since 1980, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants have fallen by 67 percent.

To put that in perspective: That reduction occurred amid a dramatic expansion of the U.S. economy. Gross domestic product increased by 165 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 110 percent, the U.S. population grew by 44 percent, and energy consumption increased by 25 percent.

For these reasons, the “clean energy” initiative is best thought of as a regressive tax imposed on those who can least afford it.

Again, this “tax” could cost middle-income and lower-income American families about $1,000 more per year in utility prices. These mandates could also negatively affect business productivity and move jobs to areas with more energy choices.

Americans deserve affordable, abundant, and reliable energy. Renewable energy mandates are a “green tax” on homeowners and small businesses that can least afford it.

Progressive democrats Use Synagogue Killing for Political Advantage

Jews stand strong in the face of progressive socialsit attacks.

They know who is attacking them for being Jews.

The progressive socialist liberal democrats have no fear now of coming out and explaining who they are and what they intend for the rest of us.

But the question now is, why? Why are they so bold and adamant about telling us how they want to ''transform'' our society and destory our way of life? 

And worse is why so many Jews are on board with the porgressive liberals.

Who exactly are these people and why do they hate this country and it's people as it was founded? And further, why are they here to do this? Can it be the legacy of Barrrack and his religious jihad he told us he wanted back in 2008 where if elected he would ''Fundamentally'' change the American civil society? 

Are we witness to the hateful statements using this horrific tragedy in the attack on a Jewish Synagogue, killing of 11 and wounding many more, the result of that statement for a religious jihad? 

Barrrack didn't hide his hatred for Jews and the Jewish state of Israel by the way he treated the Israeli president, Benjamin Netanyahu when he was in Washington to meet Barrrack at the White House.  And with history as our witness, Barrrack fully intended to change the outcome of an Israeli election to defeat him sending operatives their to do just that.

And as what we are actually witnessing today from networks like CNN in the run up to the midterm elections, it's obvious by the hateful rhetoric from these main steam media outlets, print, radio, and television, as well as progressive politicians around the country and in Washington, the liberal democrats mean to do all harm and ''by any means necessary''.

A Young Jewish Conservative Speaks Out: Trump Has Been ‘Aligned With the Jewish People’

Katrina Trinko / @KatrinaTrinko / Daniel Davis / @JDaniel_Davis / Joel Griffith / @joelgriffith / October 30, 2018

Is anti-Semitism on the rise in the United States? And if so, are college campuses playing a role? And what does it feel like as a Jewish person in the aftermath of the horrific shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh? On the Oct. 30 podcast, Joel Griffith, a research fellow in financial regulations at The Heritage Foundation and Washington, D.C., chair of the Young Jewish Conservatives, joined us to discuss all that and more. Here’s a lightly edited transcript of that conversation.

Katrina Trinko: Joel, before we get into the politicization of this issue, I wanted to ask you about this particular ceremony this Saturday. When the shooting began, the people were gathered for a celebration of a new child. What is that ceremony in the Jewish faith and how would people have been celebrating before this occurred?

Joel Griffith: Eight days after birth, a Jewish boy will undergo a circumcision. That is a mark of being Jewish that was first given to, what we believe is our father of our people, Abraham, thousands of years ago. You can read that story still today in the Hebrew Bible.

It’s still something that is done eight days after birth. Typically, you’ll take the child … It can be done at home, but often it’ll be done at a synagogue. Right before that ceremony takes place, you’ll actually have a naming ceremony, that’s when the Jewish name is given to that child. Usually people outside the family, they won’t even know what that name is going to be until that moment.

Naming that child is considered of utmost importance. One Jewish organization, Chabad, describes it as the glimmer of divine inspiration that occurs when you give the child that name.

It’s all important. It is celebratory. Usually there is family there, friends there. In this situation, there were quite a few elderly people there. That’s normal. You want people and friends from all generations there to celebrate that moment. Typically, after that name is given, if it’s on Shabbat at the synagogue, the father will be called up to read part of the Torah, part of the five books of the Bible. It’s a very special ceremony.

Trinko: Sounds beautiful.

Daniel Davis: Joel, how does this event factor into the Jewish experience in America? I know that synagogues have been targeted around the world by anti-Semitic people in America as well, but I can’t remember something as horrific as this in my lifetime, my memory, but how does this factor into the Jewish experience in this country?

Griffith: I think, fortunately, for the Jewish people, being in this nation has been unparalleled in modern times for the ability to live a Jewish life, to follow your Jewish beliefs. That’s something that all religious faiths have shared here.

This really is, from what I understand, the most tragic event that’s happened at a Jewish place of worship in this country. That’s certainly an aberration from the norm in a place where we have nothing but utmost freedom to live our lives, and follow our conscience, and follow our religious faith.

Trinko: One of the things I mentioned, of course, it’s became political so quickly. Unfortunately, that seems to be a pattern in our country these days with Twitter and all. The tragedy happens, right away people are trying to figure out the blame, etc. How did you feel watching this?

Griffith: Having family and having a younger brother and sister-in-law who just had a child of their own, it’s particularly sad and tragic to think that at a moment of such celebration, such evil could occur.

I think for all of us when we enter into a place of worship or a place we gather with our friends and family to celebrate meaningful events, or just to grow closer to them, you expect that those places, particularly places where you go to honor tradition or to worship God, you expect that that place is one of comfort and peace, and learning where you can take a moment and disconnect from the rest of the world. And for a moment, just have that peace of loving and of being with those that you care about. You should never have to fear walking into a place such as that.

Trinko: We briefly discussed before the recording how there was a group in Pittsburgh that said, I believe, “Blame President Trump,” or said he should never attend the synagogue. How did you feel about stuff like that?

Griffith: Well, I saw the headline. The one I read, I believe, was one from The Hill, it said, “Jewish leaders tell Trump he’s not welcome.” It struck me, No. 1, as odd that at a moment of tragedy, there would be any group of people that would be so crassly political. But I decided I want to go ahead and actually read this piece. It turns out it’s not what it appeared.

There wasn’t this large group of Jewish leaders in Pittsburgh telling the president of the United States that he’s not welcome or suggesting that he’s in some way racist or anti-Semitic. It was a group of 12 people that signed a letter from a very radical organization called Bending the Arc. This organization has advocated for quasi-socialist policies. They’re not known for being particularly friendly to Israel. …

The fact is, when it comes to President Trump, regardless of whether or not you voted for him in the last election, there is no doubt that when it comes to Israel, he’s been quite possibly the most pro-Israel president that we’ve ever had.

He’s been aligned with the Jewish people. He has a Jewish daughter, an observant Jewish daughter and in-laws. He’s surrounded himself with advisers, some of whom are not only Jewish, but are actually religiously observant Jews.

If you look at how he has interacted with Israel … If you go to Israel on the ground—I’ve been there in the past few months, talking to people on the street, talking to my friends, talking to people in public policy positions. They are overjoyed at the way in which our relationship with Israel has been strengthened over the past two years.

One of the ways in which the administration has been a positive force to Israel is really so clearly drawing the lines between good and evil and recognizing that there are certain political institutions that we’ve worked with in the past, such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and finally coming to grips with the fact that not only were they founded on a terrorist belief system, if you look at their founding charter, too often they continue to either explicitly, or oftentimes behind the scenes, support and fund terrorist activities. We’ve at last begun to say so long as that behavior continues, we are going to begin removing funding for those government institutions that are run by the Palestinian Authority.

Davis: When you talk about folks in Israel who feel that way, in the Jewish community in America, it can be a diverse community, but are those feelings also reflected there, that this support for Israel is welcome?

Griffith: Well, two things. I think politically, domestic policy, there’s no doubt just from public polling or just from personal experience, the Jewish community is more to the left than the rest of the population; that turns up in numerous public polling.

But the parts of the Jewish community—this is a large segment—that are aligned with Israel and want to see that nation succeed, and see our alliance succeed, and that recognize Israel as a beacon of freedom and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, those folks, whether they’re Republican or Democrat, are also, I believe, very thankful for what’s been done in the past few years.

There’s been overwhelming praise, for instance, for moving the embassy to Jerusalem. There’s been overwhelming support for the bipartisan resolution that was signed into law, the Taylor Force Act, that beings to defund the Palestinian Authority if they continue to support terrorism.

If you go to a conference, such as APEC, that is not an organization that’s just filled with Republicans. In fact, I’m pretty sure, having attended several years, it is overwhelming Democratic.

But if you look at the support in conversations there, and also if you look at the expression of enthusiasm for speakers, such as [U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations] Nikki Haley and Vice President Mike Pence, that come in to talk about how we’re making progress with our relationship with Israel, if you look at just the wild enthusiasm for that, I think there is great thankfulness on the part of the Jewish community in the United States, whether they’re Republican or Democrat on those particular policy matters.

Trinko: It seems like often we hear about college campuses and concerns about whether, essentially, they’re fermenting, at times, anti-Semitism.

A couple months ago, there was a big news story—I want to say it was a Michigan college that was involved where a student wanted to travel abroad, I believe, for a program and asked a professor to write a letter. When the professor found out that he wanted to go to Israel, he was like, “No, I’m not going to do this.”

Do you think college campuses are maybe contributing to a problem in this country?

Griffith: Well, there is no doubt that anti-Semitism, very thinly disguised as anti-Zionism, is pervasive across the country. There are thousands of instances that have been documented, both by Anti-Defamation League, but also the Israel on Campus Coalition and other entities, that track these occurrences.

Now, I’ll say, fortunately, over the last year, we’ve been pushing back. We’ve actually seen a sizable decline in the number of actives in the past year as pro-Israel activities have stepped up. But on hundreds of college campuses, they’re still organizations, probably the most prominent one is the Students for Justice in Palestine. It’s Orwellian named. The Students for Justice in Palestine, if you look at who’s actually funded them in the past and who they’re tied in with, their parent organization is the American Muslims for Palestine.

People that are with them have been associated with the Holy Land Foundation. If you look back a few years ago, if you remember, there was a big case that just went through the courts in which Holy Land Foundation was convicted—108 counts—of funneling money to Hamas to the tune of $12 million.

These are bad actors at this particular organization. Students that are associated with them have engaged in hundreds, hundreds of instances of intimidating students based on them being Jewish or based on their support of Israel. There’s a long list of documented evidence of that.

Trinko: Does the BDS movement, specifically, figure into this?

Griffith: Well, a big part of what these organizations do—not just limited to Students for Justice in Palestine, but other entities that try to appear as less extreme—it’s called Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions.

This movement wants … It’s very simply put in the name. They want us to boycott Israel. They want investment funds and then college endowments to divest from Israel. Ultimately, they want the United States government and other governments to officially sanction the state of Israel.

If you look at the founder, the finder’s a gentlemen—loosely speaking—by the name of Omar Barghouti. He was the main instigator of this movement well over a decade ago. He runs the website called Electronic Intifada.

He once said—he was being very, very honest here—”The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is really dead. Good riddance. Someone has to issue an official death certificate before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial.”

Now, when he’s saying this, he’s not just saying he doesn’t want two separate states, he’s saying he wants the so-called Zionist enterprise to be finished—no existence of a Jewish state or the Jewish people.

He’s been very open in what he believes and other entities now have no run with that. You see even some religious organizations that now have tried to further that. They’ve infiltrated numerous mainstream religious organizations, sadly.

Trinko: Thank you so much for joining us, Joel, and discussing this.

Griffith: Thank you for having me.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

Voter Fraud Is A reality : Black Suffer The Most?

Given what is known about all of the corruption in our voting system today, we have to understand any election we have will be tainted by fraud, not the Russians, but by porgressive liberal democrats. 

The liberal socialsit democrats make no bones about their tactics. They use to hide their activates but the corrosive atmosphere of hate and division in our country today has allowed criminals like the Clintons and others to get away with what ever is necessary to win elections.

Here is just one of the worst voter fraud cases that seems to have slipped between he cracks, Louis Learner of the IRS effectively caused the 2012 presidential election to be seen as a fraud. 

Learner attacked 292 Republican activists groups that were seeking exempt status during the campaigning season stating in 2010. She stopped all of those groups, dead. And she wasn't alone in her efforts, the FBI, the DOJ and the EPA were also involved.

How about Erik Holder refuse to stop black panthers members holding clubs out in front of a voting area. He said in effect black panthers members are exempt for prosecution. 

Oh, and where was Barrrack? Their leader? Eric Holder said he was Barrrack's ''Wing man". Barrack said he didn't know about any of that until he read it in the papers. What? democrats and worse!

Voter Fraud Undermines the Votes of Black Americans

Derrick Hollie / @DJHollie / October 24, 2018

We often hear people complain that their votes don’t count, and recent election results have many questioning our voting process.

Indeed, without effective safeguards, the civil rights movement’s goal of making everybody’s vote count may never be achieved.

White authorities in the Jim Crow South used tactics ranging from poll taxes to ballot destruction to lynching to keep blacks from participating in the political process. Efforts to limit and hijack votes still exist, but they are much more subtle.

When a vote is cast in someone else’s name—dead or alive—the votes of others are diminished. When an illegal immigrant or a restricted felon votes, the votes of others are similarly compromised.

Voter fraud may lack the intimidation and violence employed in the past, but it still minimizes the ability of all people to participate in the process and determine how they are to be governed.

Those in poor and minority communities are particularly at risk because they are frequent victims of voter fraud. Anthony DeFiglio, a Democratic committeeman in Troy, New York, said, “The people who are targeted live in low-income housing and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask questions. What appears as a huge conspiracy to nonpolitical persons is really a normal political tactic.”

DeFiglio should know. He pled guilty to voter fraud himself.

Project Veritas has shown just how easy it is to obtain a ballot without proof of identity. The Department of Justice recently indicted 19 legal and illegal foreign nationals for voting in the 2016 election, and this year, the California Department of Motor Vehicles accidentally registered approximately 1,500 people to vote—including noncitizens.

In 2013, a poll worker pled guilty to voting in place of her comatose sister in three previous elections. And Al Franken’s 312-vote Senate victory in 2008 is tainted by the fact that 1,099 convicted felons voted illegally in that election.

And that’s just scratching the surface. The Heritage Foundation’s Voter Fraud Database chronicles many types of election fraud across the United States along with findings and convictions.

As part of its “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America,” the Project 21 black leadership network offers a robust set of recommendations for protecting black self-determination.

Project 21 calls for voter identification requirements and proof of citizenship. It recommends regular cleaning of voter lists to remove people who have moved or died, and purging lists of voters who haven’t voted in six years (ignoring three federal election cycles). It also suggests limiting mailed ballots to those who request them, as well as prosecuting those who target black communities in voter fraud schemes.

“Today’s voter suppression doesn’t come from men wearing hoods,” says Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper. “It comes through voter dilution due to phony voters on the rolls—convicts, illegals, and ghosts. The effect is the same—bona fide black citizens have their votes cancelled or drowned out.”

With a critical election looming, there’s plenty of talk about the importance of voting. But the focus is always about getting to the polls—not being prepared with documentation. This seems almost intentional. It’s also demeaning.

The lead plaintiff in a 2012 case that the ACLU and NAACP brought against Pennsylvania’s voter ID law was 93-year-old black woman named Viviette Applewhite. Her ID had been stolen, and she was unable to obtain a copy of her birth certificate. Her attorneys argued that under these circumstances, the voter ID law kept her from voting.

The court upheld the voter ID law, but the next day, Applewhite easily got a free identification issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Taking her circumstances into consideration, state employees who reportedly didn’t know who she was accepted an old Medicare card and Department of Public Welfare document as enough proof of her identity.

Applewhite reportedly visited nine countries and 48 states in her 93 years. In 2012, she could have never visited a 10th country without showing proper identification, nor could she likely enter a courthouse to have her case heard. The fact that the ACLU and NAACP fought to keep her at an overall disadvantage is not a civil rights achievement.

Having won the right to vote with the 15th Amendment, and having it secured by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other legislation, blacks need to have their votes count. Protections such as ID requirements and clean voter rolls are key to this assurance.

Jewish Community Stands Strong : We Might Bend But Not Break.

The United States is a haven for the Jewish communities to be free to be Jews, as it is for any religion that exist in the world. Sadly though the progressive socialist liberal democrats have a different agenda then  the one set down in our Constitution that guarantees individual freedom for religion. 

Given the liberal's collective agenda that is knowingly perversely wide spread in the media today, and the history over the 8 years of Barrrack doing what he could to punish Israel, little wonder the hate for Jews has increased significantly. 

The mainstream media has no other agenda other then to hate. Journalism is dead. Progressive socialist killed like they do everything else that is lawful and productive for individual freedom.

Barrrack and the liberal Marxists in the democrat collective ruling class and their capitulant disciples are working hard to malign Jews and their religion. Little wonder as well that a hateful mentally diseased person was driven to kill any Jew he could find to satisfy that need to be part of collective. 

He was helplessly disciplined to hate by the on going narrative he saw every day in our media and the progressive socialist liberal collective leadership.

America Has Always Been a Safe Haven for Jews. An Evil Killer Won’t Change That.

Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / October 29, 2018

A wicked man shot and killed 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue and wounded six others on Saturday.  It was a horrific act of targeted violence against Jews that rightly drew a response from the White House and the nation.

“This evil anti-Semitic attack is an assault on all of us. It’s an assault on humanity. It will require all of us working together to extract the hateful poison of anti-Semitism from the world,” President Donald Trump said at a rally in Illinois. “The scourge of anti-Semitism cannot be ignored, cannot be tolerated, and cannot be allowed to continue.”

It is sickening to see the heinous result of virulent anti-Semitism that has raised its ugly head.
Yet despite the presence of anti-Semitism in America—a presence that has perhaps increased in recent years—on the whole, it would be nonsensical to think that this country has not been both welcoming and a beacon of liberty for Jews.

This tolerance, acceptance, and embrace of Jews has been true since the founding of the country. It is unfortunate that many have forgotten the name, for instance, of Haym Salomon, a Polish Jew who was among our great Founding Fathers.

Not only was Salomon among the famed Sons of Liberty, he was also a talented financier. He contributed nearly all of his wealth to the revolution, making him indispensable to his newly formed country while destroying himself financially and putting his life in jeopardy.

Today, a statue of Salomon stands in Chicago alongside a statue of Robert Morris, another great financier of the revolution, and of George Washington, who was acutely aware of Salomon’s contributions to the new nation and that of his Jewish brethren.

Under the statue, erected in 1941, reads:

The government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
It is particularly relevant that Washington appears standing beside Salomon. Washington’s solidarity with Salomon and the Jewish community works against the notion that America, despite being founded by mostly Christians, was a nation only for Christians.

Washington authored one of the most moving statements about religious tolerance in our country’s history, setting the standard for what America should be.

The letter, written in 1790 to Moses Seixas and a Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, deserves quotation in full:

While I received with much satisfaction your address replete with expressions of esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you that I shall always retain grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced on my visit to Newport from all classes of citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security.

If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good government, to become a great and happy people.

The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration and fervent wishes for my felicity.

May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.
This statement is a tribute to America’s commitment to religious tolerance since its creation. Indeed, Americans have mostly mirrored Washington’s attitude.  This is not to say that there are not anti-Semites of many stripes in this country today. Recent events prove quite otherwise.

Many on the left have been quick to blame conservatives and Trump for the rise in blatant anti-Semitism, but this ignores the openly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel elements that openly operate in their midst.

For instance, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan still participates in events with prominent Democrats, and his angry, malignant diatribes against Jews go unpunished on Twitter as the platform silences conservative voices for vague reasons.

Farrakhan has also lambasted the existence of Israel—something quite out of step with the views of most Americans, who overwhelmingly support Israel.

The United States hasn’t just been a haven for Jews within its borders. It has been a long-term ally and friend of Israel, despite the fact that our college campuses often support the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (or BDS) movement, which aims to weaken Israel and includes many openly anti-Semitic members.

Ultimately, Farrakhan, the BDS movement, and other radical voices are outliers in this country, not the norm.

I can only say that for the Jewish part of my family that left Eastern Europe at the turn of the 20th century and emigrated to the United States—given all that has happened in that region since that time, I am deeply thankful that a country like the United States exists and that we were saved from the horrors of the last century.

One mass murderer in Pittsburgh can’t change the fact that America—and not just Jerusalem—is a shining city upon a hill for Jews, a place where all may live according to the dictates of their conscience under just and equal laws.

City Girl Marries Cow Puncher : Out Smarts The Guys (Humor)

I think a little humor is needed on this Monday after so much chaos last week.

A blonde city girl named Sue marries a Colorado rancher.

One morning, on his way out to check on the cows, the rancher says to Sue, 'The insemination man is coming over to impregnate one of our cows today, so I drove a nail into the 2 by 4 just above where the cow's stall is in the barn. 'Please show him where the cow is when he gets here, OK?"

The rancher leaves for the fields.

After a while, the artificial insemination man arrives and knocks on the front door. “I came to inseminate the cow,” he said.  Sue takes him down to the barn. They walk along the row of cows, and when Sue sees the nail, she tells him, 'This is the one right here.'

The man, assuming he is dealing with an air-head blonde, asks, 'Tell me, lady, 'cause I'm dying to know. How would YOU know that this is the right cow to be bred?'   'That's simple." she said. "By the nail that's over its stall,' she explains very confidently.

Laughing rudely at her, the man says, 'And what, pray tell, is the nail for?'  The blonde turns to walk away and says sweetly over her shoulder, 'I guess it’s to hang your pants on.'

(It's nice to see a blonde winning...once in awhile.)

Progressive Socialist democrats : America Without Borders

Open borders? Millions of illegal immigrants poring 

across the boarder every year?

What is at stake here is the individual freedom of American citizens to chose their own destiny. Do the people still have the power to make decision that the government must follow? Or is it the socialsit liberal agenda and ideology that seems to be the popular narrative of ''We are the World'' and have no right to national sovereignty.

November 6th is the time to decide who and what America is and what she will become. Time to chose. 

The Left Goes Full Open Borders

Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / October 26, 2018

It wasn’t long ago that both sides of the aisle believed America’s border laws should be enforced.
As President Donald Trump pointed out on Twitter, even former President Barack Obama, at least rhetorically, said that illegal immigrants couldn’t be let into the country en masse and without restrictions. (He said that as a senator.)

Watch The video : https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1054874705491120133

“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants into this country,” Obama said.

This dynamic has dramatically shifted, as the American left now increasingly sees any level of border enforcement as beyond the pale.

The migrant caravans originating in Honduras and heading north to the U.S. border are testing just how far the left will go in embracing this new narrative.  The position Obama held just over a decade ago is now considered offensive in some circles. Some are even demanding that the U.S. let the caravan into the United States.

“Every one of these people are coming from a real fear. These are refugees,” Cambridge, Massachusetts Mayor Marc McGovern said, according to the Boston Herald. “These are people who really are facing real problems and we have to let them through.”  The left is sending a message that concern over unchecked immigration is illegitimate.

Yet this is out of step with the American people in general.  Americans are clearly divided when it comes to the issue of immigration. Some want more high-skilled immigrants, others don’t. Some think a wall is necessary for border security, others don’t.

But one thing that Americans tend to agree on, strongly, is the idea that we have a right to control our border and determine who comes into the country. This belief flows from the concept that we are a sovereign nation that must maintain law and order for the safety of everyone.

The idea that thousands of people can just arrive at the border, demand entrance to the United States, and possibly force their way in by overwhelming U.S. authorities offends our idea that America is a nation of laws, and it undermines the idea that the American people have the right to set their own immigration policies.

America has very specific laws regarding legal immigration and asylum—which generally only applies in cases of state-based repression. Allowing a gaggle of thousands of people into this country with little oversight and little legal standing would only encourage more of this sort of tactic.

This worry is fueled by an increasingly aggressive left-wing stance that any level of border enforcement is tantamount to racism and nativism. This view is no longer held by just a few radicals. It is increasingly the stance of more mainstream progressives and Democrats.

Earlier this year, the call to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, morphed into a mainstream movement embraced by prominent Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

One can see how this public position actually encourages more illegal immigration, including the massive caravans.

As The Heritage Foundation’s senior policy analyst for Latin America, Ana Quintana, noted, many of these migrants have been manipulated by South American left-wing parties into believing this is their path to the United States.  It’s a political tactic used to sow chaos, and unfortunately puts lives at risk—including the migrants who travel thousands of miles through dangerous locations to get to the U.S. border.

“This caravan antic is right out of the left’s disorder and chaos playbook,” Quintana wrote. “The timing before the U.S.’s midterm elections and the change of presidency in Mexico is not coincidental. It is also clear the caravan organizers are more interested in creating turmoil than the well-being of the migrants.”

We are paying the price of the world believing we won’t enforce our border laws.

The issue now at stake with the caravan is not merely immigration, but whether the United States is in fact a sovereign country—whether the American people have the power to decide their immigration laws, and whether our government will enforce those decisions.

All of this shows just how far progressives have moved away from the mainstream when it comes to immigration.