Budget Cuts Proposed by Ryan : 2 Trillion Over 10 Years

When you here about some of the stuff that we are spending money on that isn't in this proposal, that there are hundreds of other items worth $billions more of dollars of waste, one has to wonder just what are our representatives doing to save us from financial destruction??

 

PAUL RYAN'S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS 

  

A List of Republican Budget Cuts - Notice S.S. and the military are NOT on this list   .

These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.

Read to the end. 

* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.

* Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings.

* International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.

* Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.

* National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings.

* National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.

* Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.

* Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.

* Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon , eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

* U..S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.

* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings.

* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings.

* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.

* Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.

* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings.

* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings

* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings.

* Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.

* Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.

*Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings..

* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.

* Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings.

* New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.

*   Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts -- $9 million annual savings

* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.

* Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings.

* Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.

* Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.

* Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings.

* Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings..

* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings..

* Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.

*Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.

* U.S.Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings..

* General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings.

* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.

*Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years..

* No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.

* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.

* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.

* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

*Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings. WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?

* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years.

* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings.

*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???

* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.

*Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings. WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL

* Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings.

* USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.

* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.

* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.

*Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs -- $900 million savings.

* Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings..

* HUD Ph.D. Program.

* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act. 

 

*TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

 

My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place ? ? ?

 

 

 

 

Her Four Husbands Were Planned : It Worked (Humor)

Okay, time to take a break again from the riggers of the total insanity of progressive politics, and enjoy some good humor.

But not to worry, if some of your liberal friends see you laughing and think about calling for medical help , don't worry. The problem is when progressive democrats see someone laughing or just smiling, it's something they do and that makes them nervous. So seeing you laughing out loud at this good and harmless humor will leave  them puzzled and confused. And that's a good thing.

Enjoy!

Four Husbands

The local news station was interviewing an 90-year-old lady because she had just gotten married for the fourth time. The interviewer asked her questions about her life, about what it felt like to be marrying again at 90, and then about her new husband's occupation.

"He's a funeral director," she answered. "Interesting," the newsman thought.

He then asked her if she wouldn't mind telling him a little about her first three husbands and what they did for a living. She paused for a few moments, needing time to reflect on all those years. After a short time, a smile came to her face and she answered proudly, explaining that she had first married a banker when she was in her 20's, then a circus ringmaster when in her 40's, and a preacher when in her 60's, and now - in her 90's - a funeral director.

The interviewer looked at her, quite astonished, and asked why she had married four men with such diverse careers.

(Wait for it)   She smiled and explained, 'I married one for the money, two for the show, three to get ready, and four to go."

The American Constitution : Freedom By Any Other Name

The problem here is that president of the Untied States has determined the Constitution is flawed in that it only states what the government cannot do to the people, not what it can do for the people. And one of the other major sticking points is that the people have a faith in a God that directed the founding fathers that based our Constitution on other then the government as god.

The 'new wave' politics of progressivism and liberalism does not allow for the people to be individually directed and have faith in a personal God rather then a god by human design.

Our Constitution  has guided this nation for 240 years to power and prosperity. To believe a centralized government that demands the people be obedient and subservient will end in disaster. History is riff with examples of failure.

The Continuing Relevance of the Constitution
Larry Arnn / November 28, 2016    

Public policy is often exciting and urgent. When a war begins or ends, when votes are counted in an election, or when a major bill is passed, everyone senses the magnitude of the event.
Some struggles end and new struggles begin. Consequences carry far into the future. Compared to this, and especially given the way we think today, the Constitution seems like a boring subject.
But how do we know whether the public policies we adopt are good? How do we know whether the results of the election will be happy? How even do we know if the war we have fought was worth it?
Those questions cannot be answered except by reference to things that are outside the immediate excitement and even our immediate needs.

These larger and more enduring things cannot be understood without understanding what we are, how we should live, how best over the long term we can achieve a good life and be free. Somehow, urgent things have to be judged in light of ultimate things.

The profoundest example of this is in our famous Declaration of Independence. The people of America decided to form their own country. It was an act of rebellion. It would carry a death sentence for many if the revolution failed, and it did carry that sentence for many in the subsequent war.
How remarkable that in this urgent moment, they would base what they did upon the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.” They were looking upward toward the eternal as they began their battle. That is one of the essential reasons why they succeeded.

RSVP here to attend Heritage’s event on the new Institute for Constitutional Government Tuesday, Nov. 29 featuring Sen. Mike Lee

How can we remember to do this kind of thinking, when so many urgent things press upon us and when hundreds of millions of us participate? The answer is given best of all in history by the Constitution of the United States, the partner of the declaration, prefigured in its middle passages.

The purpose of the Constitution is to ground the government in the people’s authority. It is also to make both we and our government thoughtful. “It is our reason alone,” writes James Madison, “that must be placed in control of the government. Our passions must be controlled by it.”

Under the Constitution, it takes time to do big things: We must think before we act. The Constitution divides power across the land and between levels and branches of government; the people and the parts of the government must cooperate if anything is to be done. To get a majority, they must give reasons—out loud and in front of millions. This encourages candor and discourages the rankest forms of partisanship. Yes, it is still partisan, but at our best moments we are better than anywhere else. Moreover, the Constitution limits what we can do to each other, teaching us self-restraint and independence.

In recent decades, our country has suffered public policy disasters. We have fought many wars without decisive victory. We have spent many trillions without removing the problems they were designed to remove. We have become a great debtor nation with fewer reserves, even if our reserves are still great. These facts are connected to the compromising of our constitutional practices. We have changed the way we make laws. The government is less accountable, and the laws are more numerous and impossible to understand. We have made government more centralized, and so its proper central functions—especially defense—are starved for resources.

As the government gets bigger, the people get smaller. They are regulated in their private lives, obstructed when they strive, subsidized in many cases into failure. This is just what the Constitution was designed to prevent.

No institution has done more to describe and promote public policy from the conservative point of view than The Heritage Foundation. It was born decades ago for specifically this purpose. It has always had an interest in the Constitution. Now, it is bringing together all of its efforts relating to that great document into the Institute for Constitutional Government, launching Nov. 29, to achieve better focus. As a friend of the Constitution and of Heritage, I am proud of this.
It can only be good. Our freedom is at stake. We will not save it without restoring our Constitution.

Abolishing the Electoral College : Assured Tyranny

The push by the progressive socialist liberal democrats to abolish the electoral college is just another attempt to gain total power to control. It's not about what's right or wrong about the system, it's only about making sure that progressives will have a voter base that is centralized, controllable and growing.

That our way of life, guaranteed by our Constitution that is about ''of  people and for the people'' to be represented no matter where they live. For the progressives liberals left democrats that gives too much freedom to the people to chose where they live.

Who wants to become a nonperson if they want to live in Kansas or Montana, and at the same time being forced to obey laws and regulations instituted by other states like California and New York that have more people then they do? But then this is what the progressive socialist left liberal democrats are all about, a political system for perpetual  power to control everyone's life.

It's called tyranny and the 'Founders' of our great nation knew all about tyranny and did something to end it.

How Abolishing the Electoral College Would Destroy the Power of the States
Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / November 28, 2016    

Nearly a month after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in this year’s presidential election, progressive groups and activists are attempting to undermine the result along with fundamental institutions created by the Founding Fathers.

Clinton appears to have won the national popular vote in 2016, primarily fueled by massive landslides in populous Democratic states like California and New York. This has sparked efforts to do away with the state-based and not entirely democratic Electoral College. Though a huge part of the anti-Electoral College push is sour grapes in the wake of a surprise electoral defeat, it serves the broader interest of the progressive movement’s goal to both delegitimize the incoming administration and subvert the idea of federalism as enshrined in the Constitution.

Electoral College Worked in 2016

The Electoral College was carefully designed by the Founders after lengthy deliberation at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The design is this: Americans don’t cast their vote for president, but instead for electors pledged to their preferred candidate. Each state has a set number of electors based on the total number of representatives and senators. You can read about why the Founders created this seemingly complex system here.

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, who was fairly popular with progressives just a week ago, supported the Electoral College process in Federalist 68. He said that “if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.” But a number of prominent Democrats have ignored Hamilton and called for an end to the Electoral College post-election.

Opponents of the Electoral College claim that the institution is fundamentally flawed. The fact that the winner of the most recent presidential contest didn’t have the highest total vote further demonstrates why it needs to be scrapped, according to their logic. This narrative couldn’t be farther from the truth, as the issues surrounding the election prove exactly why the Electoral College is such an excellent system for the United States.

For instance, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is leading a movement to recount votes in three key states that Trump won: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This was in part justified by the idea that Russia had tampered with the election. The recount process will likely be messy, but it would be vastly more complicated if America had to undergo a national as opposed to state-level recount. Votes have trickled in for the last month, and it is possible that without the state-based system it might still be unclear who the next president would be.

As ugly as the 2016 election was, it would have been far uglier without the moderating, stable process afforded by the Electoral College.

Having states conduct their own elections is a strength of our system, not a weakness. For instance, without the Electoral College and respect for state powers, it would be difficult for America to experiment with solutions to prevent voter fraud. This should be a priority for those suddenly concerned about voting integrity.

Assault on Federalism
What is lost in the Electoral College debate is the underlying attack on America’s cherished and inherited idea of federalism. The Founders in their wisdom designed this republic with the intent of checking ambition with ambition, and delegating specific powers to both the national as well as state governments. They created a nation in which states could operate independently, experimenting with different policies and laws to fit their people.

The elimination of the Electoral College would be just another blow to the role of the states in the American system of government. No longer would presidential candidates have to appeal to the farmers of rural Iowa alongside the bankers of urban New York. They would be incentivized to campaign directly to the interests of the largest population centers alone. The reasoning used to abolish the Electoral College could easily be applied to some of the most important aspects of America’s constitutional republic.

If the Electoral College is simply an ancient, undemocratic, and defunct relic of the Founding, then why isn’t the Senate? After all, treating the states equally and allowing them only two senators regardless of population is silly if one thinks the states hold no special place in our system. One writer was open about this in a Washington Post op-ed calling for abolishing the states entirely.
“Times have changed, and we need to rethink the notion of the ‘United States of America,’”

Lawrence R. Samuel wrote in The Washington Post. “Our states are no longer culturally diverse regions with their own respective identities; rather, they are artificially constructed geographic entities that certainly would not be formed today.”
Samuel concluded:

A federation of states was a wonderful idea in the late 18th century, but represents an unnecessary and costly burden in the early 21st. Two layers of government—federal and local—offers a cleaner, more sensible, and much more affordable system than our current one …

This is the essential issue at the heart of the Electoral College that extends far beyond the results of a single election.

The left wants to fundamentally change the system of federalism so venerated and protected by the founding generation. But those who believe that the United States was built on timeless ideas about man’s relation to man should look to preserve the system that allowed America to rise to the status of a superpower while preserving individual liberty.

Voter Fraud A Tool For Democrats : Deception Rules

But wait - isn't this just more 'right wing conspiracy' stuff like the progressive liberal democrats demand? Remember the smartest and most experienced woman on earth proclaiming that it was just a right wing conspiracy that was going after her husband for getting special sex treatments in the Oval Office of the White House?

What? Democrats deceive the public? Who? Us? nah.

And most importantly, given all of the misinformation, deception and out right lies that the democrats use to ''pivot'' the discussion from what the people want to understand is the problem in our voting system. So why would a proclamation from the progressive socialist liberal democrats, waving their collective arms and gnashing their teeth, screaming there is no voter fraud make any sense?

Democrats believe if the tell the lie often enough, it will become truth, and a lot of the time it works, especially with the main stream media onboard to make the lie a reality. Now there's a conspiracy that you can believe. And if that's not enough, it's common knowledge among those lurking in the trenches around the country, that if the progressive democrats couldn't use voter fraud to win elections, they wouldn't ever win.

The general public has no reason what's-for-ever after the Clinton email lies and deception, to believe anything the progressive democrats say to be fact. Ever!

More Than 800,000 Noncitizens May Have Voted in 2016 Election, Expert Says
Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / November 28, 2016

An election expert projects more than 800,000 noncitizens voted in the 2016 election and overwhelmingly for Democrat Hillary Clinton. While substantial, that number doesn’t overcome Clinton’s 2.2 million popular vote lead over Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who won a decisive Electoral College triumph of 306 to 232.

On Sunday, the president-elect tweeted he would have won the popular vote had it not been for illegal votes cast. The Trump transition team on Monday cited nonpartisan studies on noncitizens voting and of faulty voter registration across the country. Only citizens 18 or older can legally vote.

“Extrapolating on data from several years ago certainly doesn’t substantiate the claim that Trump is making now,” Jesse Richman, an associate professor of political science at Old Dominion University, told The Daily Signal. “That could change. If there is a recount in Michigan and Trump loses by a few votes, then it’s very plausible that noncitizen voting made a big difference. Hopefully, it doesn’t come to that.”

Richman was the co-author of a 2014 study that looked at noncitizen voting in the 2008 and 2010 elections. In the comparable presidential election year, the Old Dominion study determined 6.4 percent on noncitizens in the United States voted in the 2008 presidential election, and about 81 percent of those voters backed Democrat Barack Obama.
Richman applied those numbers to 2016:

The basic assumptions on which the extrapolation is based are that 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted, and that of the noncitizens who voted, 81.8 percent voted for Clinton and 17.5 percent voted for Trump. … 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million noncitizen adults in the U.S. would add only 834,318 votes to Clinton’s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin. … Is it plausible that noncitizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes. Is it plausible that noncitizen votes account for the entire nationwide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.

A December 2015 study led by Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard University argued the 2014 Old Dominion study was flawed and that “the likely percent of noncitizen voters in recent U.S. elections is zero.” Richman responded to the criticism and said suggesting zero percent does not hold up.
Trump transition team spokesman Jason Miller cited the Old Dominion study reported on in The Washington Post in 2014, as well as a Pew Research Center study from 2012 about problems with voter registration across the country. “An issue of concern is that so many have voted that are not legally supposed to,” Miller told reporters in a conference call Monday. He said this warrants more attention than the “shiny object” Jill Stein and the Green Party are using to push recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that have no chance of overturning the election.

Beyond the noncitizens voting study from Old Dominion, Miller pointed to the Pew study from 2012 that found 24 million voter registration records in the United States, or about 1 in 8, were “significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.” The Pew study further found “1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters,” that “12 million records contain an incorrect address,” and that “2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.”

It would take a very high percentage of noncitizens voting to overcome the Clinton popular vote lead, said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors strong enforcement of immigration laws. “If 10 percent of noncitizens voted, it would likely make a popular vote difference,” Camarota told The Daily Signal. “It’s not the Electoral College [Trump] is upset about. It’s the popular vote. I wish he wouldn’t focus on it. Bill Clinton got just 43 percent of the vote in 1992. How many states did he win more than 50 percent of the vote in?”

Trump could be correct about the number of illegal votes, but there is no way to know, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation who focuses on voter integrity issues.
“It’s possible he’s right, but we don’t know because there is no way to quantify, no system in place to identify noncitizens voting,” Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security should obtain state voter registration lists and check against noncitizen database. And the DOJ should start prosecuting noncitizens who are voting.”

Prosecuting voter fraud will have to be a higher priority under the Trump administration than under the Obama administration, said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog. “It has got to be a priority I would think based on Mr. Trump’s rhetoric,” Fitton told The Daily Signal. “At least, make sure that only citizens are registered to vote. We need basic reforms to reassure people that elections are free and fair.”

Denver Sheriff Fined For Hiring Only American Citizens : Feds Say Not Fair

The injustice of the federal government is mind boggling to the average citizen that lives and works in the real world. And little to wonder then that the general public has become well aware of this abomination and prostitution of the justice system as the November election is solid proof. They through out the cancer that is progressive socialist liberalism.

What happened in Denver to the Sheriff Department is just more incredible malfeasance and criminal activity  from the Department of Justice, especially the Civil Rights Division. This is the same division that said they would not prosecute voter intimidation at poling places as long as those involved welding the wooden clubs were black.

And to believe we, as a nation and our civil society are not under attack from the progressive liberals is just foolish and dangerous thinking. The DOJ is just one arm of Barack's 'transformation' team.

Department of Justice Fines Sheriff Department for Hiring Only US Citizens
Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / November 23, 2016    

In a sharp illustration of how the federal government refuses to play by the same rules as everyone else, the Denver Sheriff’s Department has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine for making U.S. citizenship a qualification for being hired as a deputy sheriff. The eight-page settlement agreement was signed by Sheriff Patrick Firman and Alberto Ruisanchez, the deputy special counsel in the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department.

The Sheriff’s Department agreed to not only pay the $10,000 fine, but agreed to go through all job applications received from noncitizens after Jan. 1, 2015, and offer them the “opportunity to complete the application/evaluation process for the deputy sheriff position” with “no consideration” of their citizenship status.

One of the sillier requirements in the settlement agreement is that the Sheriff’s Department post “an English and Spanish version of the Office of Special Counsel ‘If You Have the Right to Work’ poster … in all places where notices to employees and job applicants are normally posted” and also to provide a copy of the poster in the “applicant’s preferred language.” You can see that poster in Arabic here.

You have to wonder whether the DOJ Special Counsel realizes or cares about the fact that if the English comprehension skills of an applicant to be a deputy sheriff are so poor that he requires the “OSC Poster” in his “preferred language” in order to comprehend what it says, he may have a bit of difficulty being an effective law enforcement officer—and that such poor language skills could endanger the safety of the public and the deputy.

The law that the Denver Sheriff’s Department supposedly violated is 8 U.S.C. §1324b, which makes it unlawful “to discriminate against any individual [except for illegal immigrants] with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment … because of such individual’s citizenship status.”

In other words, if someone is a noncitizen who is legally in the country and has a work authorization from the Department of Homeland Security, that person cannot be discriminated against in the employment context.

However, there are some very big exceptions. For example, Section (a)(4) specifically provides that it is not a violation of the statute to “hire, recruit, or refer an individual who is a citizen or national of the United States over another individual who is an alien if the two individuals are equally qualified.”
There is no indication that the Obama Justice Department has any evidence that any noncitizens who may have applied were better qualified than the deputies hired by Denver since Jan. 1, 2015.

There is also an exception that allows the hiring of only citizens if it is required “in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by federal, state, or local government contract, or which the attorney general determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the federal, state, or local government.” The exception for required compliance with a “law, regulation, or executive order” does not say a federal “law, regulation, or executive order.”
Thus, local and state governments would seem to have the ability to get around this statute—and the attention of the Civil Rights Division—by passing a law, issuing a regulation, or executing an executive order that makes citizenship a requirement for hiring law enforcement personnel.

Given the importance of the job done by law enforcement officers throughout all levels of government to protect the public from those who would harm them, ranging from common criminals to the terrorists who have killed many Americans inside our country in recent years, requiring citizenship seems like a basic, commonsense qualification.

The federal government certainly thinks so—because it does not apply this statute to itself. If you want to be a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which often works closely with local law enforcement, including sheriff’s departments like Denver’s, the FBI website specifically says that you “must be a United States citizen.”

The same is true of the U.S. Secret Service, which routinely discriminates against noncitizens in a manner that no doubt horrifies the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. The website for the Secret Service says that all candidates for employment, whether in the Uniformed Division or as special agents, “must be U.S. citizens.” Oh, and by the way, all of the DOJ lawyers whose names are on the settlement agreement with the Denver Sheriff’s Department? They are also no doubt U.S. citizens. How do I know that? As a current job listing on the USAJOBS website for a position inside the Civil Rights Division explains under key requirements: “You must be a U.S. Citizen or National.”

If an employer hires a noncitizen legally in the country who is permitted to work, no one questions that employers should not be able to discriminate against that employee in wages, benefits, and the other accoutrements of employment.

However, employers should not be prohibited from doing what is best for “the general welfare” of Americans—hiring U.S. citizens over visitors to our country, who are only our guests. This provision of federal immigration law needs to be changed. It is a matter of basic fairness and ensuring that all Americans are gainfully employed so that they—and their families—can engage in the “pursuit of Happiness,” a fundamental truth that we hold to be self-evident.

Castro's Cuba - Tryanny Continues, Unabated : Thank You Barack!

Truly this citizen, a first generation Cuban Amerian, that is willing to pray for Fidel's soul is a saint. That Fidel will find absolution in his death for his killing, murdering, slaughtering 10's of thousands of innocent people and forcing 100's of thousands to flee his murderous rampage of a communist ideology where all power lies in the hands of a few.

Wonder no longer why progressive socialist liberals love a tyrant. Progressives are all about centralized power to control the population, forcing them to do the bidding of the few or suffer the consequences for disobedience. This is Americana, right? How can there consequences for opposing an unscrupulous, unethical and immoral, if not violent and repressive federal government? We have rights to free speech guaranteed by our Constitution, right?

If you want to oppose the progressives, you had better have your life in order along with all of the accompanying paper work as the federal government will be knocking on your door or if the federals think you might have a real complaint, they will kick in your door in the middle of the night like the did in Wisconsin, accompanied by armed men of violence. It happened!!!

To believe Fidel Castro was anything other then a hero to the progressives is like to believe Barack wakes up every day thinking how he can help the people of this country to be secure, safe and prosperous. Nonsense!!!

Fidel Castro May Be Dead, but Tyranny Remains in Cuba
Ana Quintana / @Ana_R_Quintana / November 26, 2016    

Late Friday evening, Cuban state media reported the death of their former leader, Fidel Castro, at age 90. Some will mourn his passing or even glorify his life. But for many others, not even his death will fill the void caused by his life.

For over five decades, Cubans suffered under the tyranny of Fidel and then his brother Raul, now 85. They watched the regime destroy a country and export the same perverted model of social justice throughout the developing world. My grandfather would often tell us of how he would hide indoors while Fidel’s firing squads would slaughter innocent people nearby.

Religion was criminalized, dissent was violently punished, and Cuban citizens became property of their communist state. Fidel’s rule brought the world to its closest point of nuclear war during those fateful 13 days in 1962. He indoctrinated hate and pushed millions out of their country.

As a first-generation Cuban-American who grew up in Miami, I know this story all too well. My family was forced to leave Cuba after not bowing to the regime. They and hundreds of other families sought refuge at the Peruvian Embassy in Havana and for over a week they lived in squalor there, attempting to figure out their next steps.

Returning to their home was not an option; Fidel’s thugs had declared the families persona non grata and vandalized their property. After some time, they were able to flee to the U.S. as part of the Mariel exodus in 1981. While they temporarily lived in a refugee camp upon arrival, they are now thriving Americans, like the rest of the Cuban exile community. To this day, my family has never returned to Cuba.

In reality, it is not that important to me whether Fidel is alive or dead. What matters is that the same repressive government and hostility toward freedom he created remains strong. Now more than ever, America needs to shift back to a policy of empowering the Cuban people. Supporting freedom-loving dissidents in their efforts to salvage their country should once again be a priority for the U.S.
Yet since Dec. 17, 2014, America has been on the wrong side of history.

While well intentioned, President Barack Obama’s policy of engaging the Castro regime clearly has not been working. Instead of pushing for freedom, the U.S. has legitimized the Western Hemisphere’s longest military dictatorship. Emboldened by U.S. complacency, the regime in the past two years has produced historic levels of political and religious persecution. As a Christian, I am enjoined to pray that Fidel Castro finds the absolution in death he denied millions throughout their lives. However reluctantly, I will do so.

But as the daughter of Cuban political refugees, his death is a reminder of our duty to continue bearing witness of the horrors committed in the name of Fidel’s revolution.

Progressives Love A Tyrant : They Do What Progressive Want to Do

Really? Progressives say nice things about a communist mass killer and the media swoons. - Does this come as a surprise that the progressive liberal democrats are in love with tyrants? People that believe they have they ability to make decisions for everyone else would love to be like Fidel Castro? Give the word and people and programs disappear.

Oh wait, that last part worked like a charm for Barack when he ran for his second term.

We see evidence of this every day that Barack has been in office. It might not be a drastic as mass murder like the Castro brothers, but look what the progressive socialist liberal democrats have done to our national government. The IRS, the DOJ, the FBI and just about every other agency or department of our government is dedicated to the progressive ideological jihad that is in full force from the White House.

Barack sets the tone while all others fall in line and produce desired results or be replaced and then cast into the outer the darkness by their piers as not qualified to be a member of the progressive liberal team.

One of the best example among many is the IRS, with the help of the DOJ and the FBI, stole  the freedom of speech from 292 opposition Tea Party groups representing thousands of volunteer citizen workers that believed Barack was not good for our country. And what happened in 2012?

Please explain how tyranny doesn't work. Everyone involved with this criminal activity have gone free.

The Left’s Appalling Whitewashing of Castro’s Legacy
Mike Gonzalez / @Gundisalvus / November 26, 2016    

You will hear some people today excuse Fidel Castro’s crimes by begging that he accomplished social goals. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have already beclowned themselves on that front. They were merely the first.

Our own President Barack Obama opted for washing his hands, choosing to neither praise Castro after his death Friday, nor to condemn the tragedy his communist dictatorship has inflicted on the Cuban people for 57 years. “History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him,” said Obama, playing Pilate.

No social accomplishment, to be sure, could justify keeping an entire people hostage, denying them the right to elect their own leaders or exercise any human rights for half a century. But there weren’t any accomplishments. On the contrary, Castro destroyed a thriving society and imposed penury, either out of Marxist dogma or out of resentment that his out-of-wedlock birth had left him with a stigma among Cuba’s middle classes.

Cuba had problems in 1958, as many societies do. But on a number of fronts, it was the lead country in Latin America, or among the very top. Its social indicators were not just ahead of Asia and Africa, but also ahead of many European countries. Many Europeans, including half of all my great-grandparents, immigrated to Cuba in the 20th century—barely a century ago—seeking to improve their lives economically. They did, and their granddaughter, my mother, went to law school.
After 57 years of communism it is risible to think of a single European immigrating to Cuba to improve his fortunes. Risible in a dark, macabre way. That’s anecdotal, but the numbers back up what 2 million Cuban-Americans today (i.e., Cuban-born people who can speak freely) know to be true.

A study by the State Department’s Hugo Llorens and Kirby Smith shows, for example, that in infant mortality, literacy rates, per capita food consumption, passenger cars per capita, number of telephones, radios, televisions, and many other indicators, Cuba led when Castro took over on New Year’s Eve 1958. The United Nations statistics leave no doubt. In infant mortality, Cuba’s 32 deaths per 1,000 live births was well ahead of Japan, West Germany, Luxembourg, Ireland, France, Italy, Spain (40, 36, 39, 33, 34, 50, and 53 respectively), and many others.

In food consumption, in terms of calories per day, Cuba was ahead of all of Latin America except cattle-rich Argentina and Uruguay. In automobiles per 1,000 inhabitants, Cuba’s 24 was ahead over everyone in Latin America expect oil-producing Venezuela (27). As for literacy rates, Cuba’s 76 percent in the late 1950s put it closely behind only Argentina, Chile, and Costa Rica. Giant Brazil’s percentage, by comparison, was 49 percent.

And Cuba’s gross domestic product per capita in 1959 was higher than those of Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, most of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, again according to U.N. statistics.
In most vital statistics, therefore, Cuba was on a par with Mediterranean countries and southern U.S. states. And today? Castro’s communism has not just left Cubans economically pauperized, but politically bereft, a situation that Obama’s unilateral concessions to Castro’s little brother, the 85-year-old Raul, Cuba’s present leader, has only made worse.

According to the Cuban Committee for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, which is recognized by Amnesty International and Freedom House, so far this year there have already been over 8,505 political arrests during the first eight months. This represents the highest rate of political arrests in decades.

Meanwhile, we are in the midst of a new Cuban migration crisis. The United States is faced with the largest migration of Cuban nationals since the rafters of 1994. The number of Cubans fleeing to the United States in 2015 was nearly twice that of 2014. Some 51,000 Cubans last year entered the United States, and this year’s figures will easily surpass that. The numbers of Cuban nationals fleeing Cuba have now quintupled since Obama took office, when it was less than 7,000 annually.

President-elect Donald Trump has promised he will reverse Obama’s opening unless Raul Castro opens up Cuba politically. This Castro won’t do and there were reports today that dissidents are being rounded up and carted off.

And so far, Trump’s statement on the “brutal dictator” Castro has been the moral one and the one closest to the mark: “Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.” Today, therefore, will be a day for clarity. What world leaders say about the departed tyrant will reveal whether they have an inner moral compass or not.

Progressives Really Do Mean ''Fundamental Change'' : I Didn't See This Coming.

This is the true face and meaning of Barack's 'Fundamental Change'.

Who knew?  I thought I knew who the opposition is to what has made this country the greatest country on earth, and the most powerful. We are the shining city on the hill that millions from around the world look to seeking freedom and a secure life from pestilence and death brought to them by tyrants.

But now for the first time in may life, when I see what is happening in our streets, and what the progressive liberal democrats are activity doing to stop our duly elected president even before he takes office, I am astounded to understand just how deep and complete the Ogbjma jihad is for transformation of our civil society has already become. Where the hell have I been?

But with all of the actors coming out from behind the curtain of past of misinformation and sinister deception, I have had my eyes opened as to just who these people are what they really do intend for the rest of us.

Sadly enough,  I find that I must have been living in a bubble where I believed the destructive liberal hoard was just a small and bastardized politically deranged minority of individuals, but now as more and more groups and organizations have come out of the shadows proclaiming some kind of vengeance against our system of government and our Constitutional law that has guided us for more the 200 years, I am amazed that I didn't see this coming or understand it's true intent or depth.

I knew that the progressive liberal agenda and ideology was to destroy our way of life when Barack told us he wanted to ''fundamentally change America'' if he were to be elected back in 2008, and that he for neatly 8 years has done everything he could the make that change a realty, but I never thought there were so many among us that are willing to join Barack's ideologically manifested religious jihad for change.

I guess it's past time to understand what exactly happened back on November the 8th when the people said they understood what was happening and wanted to stop the ''transformation'', but I believed it was just a fundamental movement on a large scale to start to heal the country, as I did, but most people didn't really understand just how bad and deep the 'change' has gone until now.

Maybe the riots in the streets and the media going all out to extraordinary lengths to demonize the people who voted for real change, and the new president that have won the day. Maybe the 'deplorables' are getting a front row seat to see just what and who the progressive socialist liberal democrats are and thereby demonstrating for all of to see what they really and truly intend for our country.

There is no doubt now who and what these people are and how the will change our civil society if we let them. If there are any progressive liberal democrats left in office in 2018 that are running or for reelection, vote them out!  All of them!!

Now the question that remains is will the 'deplorables' that pay the taxes, build the buildings and grow the food go back to sleep after  truing out the malignant cancer that is the Clintons, and the other destructive destructive people that were riding on the Clinton coat tails, ready to bring more pain and moral corruption then we already have.

This election was only the beginning of the fight to save out country from the destructors. Stay awake. These are not nice people. They mean to do us all harm.
 

A Progressive Poster Boy for The Ages : Mr Krugman Defined



Mr Krugman's history of saying things that alert mental health professionals.

How is it that the progressive socialist liberal democrats can say things that are totally unfounded, with out merit or truth and yet are seen as legitimate spokespersons for the collective? Understand as well Krugman is just one of many that say things that make people that have common sense and live in the real world cannot begin to comprehend his meaning or logic.

It's rumored that mental professionals are watching him for signs of slipping over the edge.

Paul Krugman is a perfect example of just how far beyond the boundaries of the real world a true believer in the progressive socialist liberal agenda and ideology, where in his world, and that of millions of other individuals with diminished capacity like Mr Krugman, all one needs to have is only a small grasp of reality to be a member in good standing in the progressive collective.

This does answer one question which does explain why Hillary nearly won the November election.

But there is still a question that still remains and that is why is Mr Krugman considered a legitimate economist, or for that matter even have a platform like the New York Times as a political analyst to proclaim he has the answer to anything of substance? His decades long history as a progressive saying things that make no sense at all should have been  enough to have him committed to mental professionals for examination.

But hey, not to worry, Mr Krugman is a good soldier and an even better democrat so he gets a free pass out of the rubber room. Little wonder the streets are not safe anymore.

Technology Brings Heatach for Animals : What's Next?

My how things have changed and how they are changing still. And what the future brings will be nothing less then amazing given what we see changing in electronics every six months or so.

Astounding developments that we could not have imagined only a few years ago.

Even our animals have to adapt to the new technology. I fear though their satisfaction will not be a great for them as it has been for us.

Progressive's Regulations and Laws : We Know What's Best

What happens next? The over-reach of a centralized authority destroys everything in it's path that has anything to do with innovation, initiative and the basic human right for the freedom to chose one's own destiny.

The agenda and ideology of the progressive liberal is to control. All outcomes are decided through a one mindset authority which believes they are they best solution to any and all problems.

It's the ''Gruber theory'' for getting a proper solution to a problem. We deicide the law as the pubic is too stupid to know what's best for them.

All that is necessary to make this happen is for the population to understand, we who are in power have the best educated and brightest people in our centralized government, and the best agenda and ideology that will bring kindness and prosperity to everyone.  It's designed for implementation of heart felt regulations and laws to improve the human condition.  All that will be required of the population is they must have obedient capitulation to the new wave authority and ideology.

That make good sense, right? All they want is what's best for everyone.

Progressive Liberal Democrats Gear Up For War : Defeat? What? When?

It's not about hate, it's just about being a  progressive democrat.

And here is the paradox - and this is why the media loves it with such passion and an undeniable hate for any opposition to their collective narrative that burns so brightly in all their dark and vindictive souls. To believe the progressive socialists liberals will be willingly give up power to anyone is to believe we can all live together in harmony as the saying goes when the progressives win an election.

The progressive liberal has no intention of 'going quietly into the night' after a defeat. And if you have any reservations about the liberal intention, Rep. Keith Ellison is looming large as the next progressive democrats choice for their leader of the collective.

Are progressive socialist liberal democrats going to take another look at maybe their agenda and narrative was wrong headed? Not a chance! They're doubling down on what caused them be ground to dust in November.

The 'new wave' strategy is from the likes of George Soros and his money, step up the tempo. The idea now is for everyone that believes they are a progressive socialist democrat, from all walks of life, must come into the street showing their total contempt for the law, the Constitution and the larger civil society in which we live.

Are they doubling down on a losing narrative? No way. Really? So now, please explain, given the back ground of Ellison which is extensive and profound if wins control, how will the 'new wave' progressives, that he will lead, be willing to allow the Republicans and Conservatives to govern the country. They won the election. The people have spoken loud and clear. Right?

Shouldn't the progressive liberal democrats accept the results of the election like they demanded of Trump?

Would it be reasonable to believe that the same logic can be used as when Barack took office and he said when some Republicans, Paul Ryan and John McCain voiced their ideas that were in opposition to his, 'Listen, this discussion is immaterial. I won the election so that's the end of it.'

Yikes! If you have never seen a person or an entire group of sycophants implode, melting down into screaming mob of depraved and neurotically challenged creatures from some other dimension of time and space, it would happen if Trump told the leading progressive democrats that he won the election and therefore all the rest of you on that side of he aisle can pound sand.

Progressive Democrats Adrift? : Nonsense! - Attack, Attack, Attack!!

It would seen that the old guard democrats are in uncharted waters, but to believe that they are unfocused on the larger prize is to not understand who these people are.

The new progressive socialist liberals that are moving to the front of the line now are angry and frustrated with the old guard that believe the old processes still work, but they always have a plan to regain power. They never give up. The never quit the fight.

But the 'new wave' progressive socialist liberals make no bones about what they want and how to get it. The old ways they say do have some validity, in that lies and deception along with character assignation all have worked well, as far as it goes.  But the old guard can't seem to get off their antiquated thinking about the limits to which they actually are willing to go to destroy the opposition.

The 'new wave' progressives democrats have no limits. Anything and everything that they can bring to bear to smash and destroy everything and everyone in their path to power is okay. In their neurotic derangement, their unhinged neurosis is complete as we see people in our universities and in so many public places that we really didn't believe these people actually existed, have, for the most part have infested their diseased ideology. They are everywhere. The cast of ''Hamilton"? What? Who knew?

The old guard members like the Clintons will slip the noose as usual that should once and for all throttle these two before they can strike again, but believe me, they will live to see another attack on this country's moral and ethical well being. It's just a matter of time.

Barack Is More Then Less : I've Come - I Saw - I Conquered

Barack's new book, first edition ' World Chaos Works'' is sold out.

Goodness - Barack Hussein Ogbjma is a walking disaster, but it doesn't seem to matter as he believes his words are all he needs to explain what a well functioning health care and economic system that he has bestowed on this country. That the country is actually a dumpster fire and the entire world is on fire and on the edge of war, is of no concern.

Getting and keeping power is about chaos and conflict. Divide and conquer are principles he uses to for success.

One of his most important works of principled success is making sure his favored people in Iran are moving toward for total control of the middle east, especially when they get a nuclear weapon which could be as soon as next year. He see this as one of his legacy accomplishment.

Bringing nuclear war to the middle east will be ultimate chaos and his time to make his move.

But now as he looks forward to his departure from office, and new the challenges and opportunities for destruction that a await, he's upbeat at the possibilities for new ways to bring chaos to America an around the world as the new world leader in waiting to rise from the well as prophesied.

Progressive Equvialence A Mystery : Patriotims Is Racism

What I find amazing that these people are completely devoid of basic intelligence that's required to live in a civilized society.

A civilized society is a grouping of individuals that  believe and behave in such a way that together they can reward each other with discussions and debates to further understand the human condition to be productive and successful. 

These people that believe they are alone in this world and that anyone that has a different view of how life must be lived to acquire prosperity must be demonized as a radical.

A love of country is found to be unacceptable. How does this happen? Are these people racialized from berth? And it appears to have been easy to turn them. I think it's in the DNA. When your genes are mutated there isn't much hope for a normal life.

Of course this simpleton is just one person, but it isn't difficult to understand their numbers are larger then we ever thought given the other neurological disorders we have witnessed from all walks of life after the November election, that saw progressive favorite lose and lose big. One of the more high profile  examples of the mentally disabled and cogently functioning impaired that surfaced was like the ''Hamilton'' cast in New York a few days ago, and then there's this debased and neurotically unbalanced democrat stooge with the sign.

Where does one turn to find answers for such delusion and denial of reality? Shouldn't life be more then this?

The Clintons Down In History : The New Bonnie And Clyde?

This is so cool in that the Clintons are being marginalized because the they cheated and robbed everyone of their money and their collective dignity.

In truth, this is nonsene. the Clintons are not going away, and they will not stop stealing as much money and power to get more money as they can, and they will do this until their such a time that even the most enduring of Clinton supporters have become only a dreamers nightmare for the general public.

Perhaps these two will make history like the Bonnie and Clyde from the last century - they are both robbers of public funds, it's just that one pair used guns and get away cars while the other used a federal agency and unscrupulous misinformation and out right lies to rob and steal their way to power, riches and infamy .

The Pilgrims Learn The Hard Way : Free Markets Saved Them

This is very interesting depiction of how the progressive liberal collective got started and then was thrown under the bus last November 8th.

If you are listeners of Rush Limbaugh you have been educated on just what transpired when the Pilgrims landed in the new world, and set up camp to pursue their agenda of religious freedom.

The problems started though when the shirt tails of the business model that that they escaped from where instituted by William Bradford for their survival in the wilderness.

As history so clearly points out, as it always does if one is willing to read and understand it's significance, under Bradford's original economic system where everyone shared in everyone else's success of growing food, most of the original crew died from exposure to the elements and starvation.

What happened? Who knew? As is human nature, some of the escapees decided they weren't cut out to work hard or found it unnecessary to become team players to even survive, as others will doing a good job of providing the necessities of life. They did not contribute anything to the larger group to survive the elements. The responsibility fell on those few who understood what will happen if there isn't enough food to go around. The workers knew what to do, while the others that were mentally still living in the old world where others took care of them, did nothing.

And as the story is told by Bradford in his journals, many of the hard workers became angry with those that didn't contribute. The hard worker  also slacked off. Why do all the work while other do nothing and yet survive.

The results of course are clear to those of us that understand, if you don't work bad things will happen to you and your family, or so the theory goes. If the system is to take from the productive and give to the unproductive, disaster is not far behind.

And here we are today, struggling under the boot of a failed socialist liberal agenda, a philosophy and ideology of an all knowing and all powerful centralized authority. They leaned nothing from the pilgrims.

Remember the twentieth century countries that believed they could make this philosophy work, 'each according to ones needs, and from each according to ones abilities' which resulted in the death of 10's millions of innocent souls.

The next spring when Bradford surveyed the remains of his flock, he decided something needed to be done to guarantee the survival of the remaining clan. He introduced free market principles among the survivors, giving each member a plot of land where they will be able to keep what ever they produce and or sell what ever they don't want to keep for themselves.

Again, as history also shows such a keen sign post for the next centuries generations to follow, that free market ideas work which saved the colony from destruction, and eventually brought about the foundation for future generations to build the greatest nation on earth.

Even with the election of Donald Trump by a public that has had enough of the socialist liberal agenda, the jury is still out on just what Mr Trump will actually do to turn our country back to successful free market principles that will save us all from a life of everything being 'equal and fair'.

Reality is not about being equal or fair. My philosophy is 'each according ones abilities' - period!