VIDEO HITLER SURVIVOR – “KEEP YOUR GUNS”

September 12th, 2019

Share

WARREN’S ASSAULT ON RETIREE WEALTH

September 12th, 2019

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Warren’s Assault on Retiree Wealth

Her vision of ‘accountable capitalism’ would destroy savings built over a lifetime—and sink the economy.

By Phil Gramm and Mike Solon Mr. Gramm, a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon is a partner of US Policy Metrics.   September 11, 2019

Who owns the vast wealth of America? Old folks. According to the Federal Reserve, households headed by people over the age of 55 own 73% of the value of domestically owned stocks, and the same share of America’s total wealth. Households of ages 65 to 74 have an average of $1,066,000 in net worth, while those between ages 35 and 44 have less than a third as much on average, at $288,700.

A socialist might see injustice in that inequality. But seniors know this wealth gap is the difference between the start and the finish of a career of work and thrift, making the last mortgage and retirement payments rather than the first. Seventy-two percent of the value of all domestically held stocks is owned by pension plans, 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts, or held by life insurance companies to fund annuities and death benefits. This wealth accumulated over a lifetime and benefits all Americans.

That means it’s your life savings on the line—not the bankroll of some modern-day John D. Rockefeller—when Democrats push to limit companies’ methods of enriching their shareholders. Several Democratic congressmen and presidential candidates have proposed to limit stock buybacks, which are estimated to have increased stock values by almost a fifth since 2011, as well as to block dividend payments, impose a new federal property tax, and tax the inside buildup of investments. Yet among all the Democratic taxers and takers, no one would hit retirees harder than Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Her “Accountable Capitalism Act” would wipe out the single greatest legal protection retirees currently enjoy—the requirement that corporate executives and fund managers act as fiduciaries on investors’ behalf. To prevent union bosses, money managers or politicians from raiding pension funds, the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act requires that a fiduciary shall manage a plan “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries . . . for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries.” The Securities and Exchange Commission imposes similar requirements on investment advisers, and state laws impose fiduciary responsibility on state-chartered corporations.

Sen. Warren would blow up these fiduciary-duty protections by rewriting the charter for every corporation with gross receipts of more than $1 billion. Every corporation, proprietorship, partnership and limited-liability company of that size would be forced to enroll as a federal corporation under a new set of rules. Under this new Warren charter, companies currently dedicated to their shareholders’ interest would be reordered to serve the interests of numerous new “stakeholders,” including “the workforce,” “the community,” “customers,” “the local and global environment” and “community and societal factors.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

OBAMA’S SOCIAL JUSTICE MILITARY EXPERIMENT

September 9th, 2019

 

 NEW YORK POST

How Obama turned the military into a social justice experiment

By Kyle Smith   September 4, 2019

A curious thing happened in the second half of the Obama era: The commander-in-chief began viewing the military less as an entity designed to destroy enemies but a tool with which to achieve progressive goals. Warriors were turned into social-justice warriors. Men and women with risible-to-nonexistent military records were made heads of the services. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus (who had logged all of two years’ service as a junior officer) named ships after Cesar Chavez and Harvey Milk.

James Hasson, a former Army captain who served in Afghanistan, stresses in “Stand Down: How Social Justice Warriors Are Sabotaging the Military” that he isn’t making a partisan, political case against President Barack Obama’s efforts to reshape the military.

He asks important, nonpartisan questions, such as what is the military really for? And is it career military people or civilian bureaucrats who are better equipped to understand how to optimize its potential?

Hasson takes a sobering look at such matters as drastically lowering standards in order to pass more women through Army Ranger school, ignoring data showing that all-male Marine units outperformed mixed-sex ones and that female recruits are more likely to suffer serious injuries.

Hasson reports on a program in which male soldiers were ordered to train in fake breasts and distended bellies so they could experience what life was like for pregnant soldiers. Ordering a recruit to do more than 10 pushups as punishment for minor misdeeds was declared unduly harsh.

The Obama policy to overturn centuries of precedent and treat troops in accordance with whatever gender identity they declared, writes Hasson, is widely deemed within the military to be unlike the issue of homosexuality. For one thing, transgender individuals were already serving. Yet because the military ranks combat readiness ahead of soothing the psyches of its members, those individuals were required to meet standards according to their immutable biological sex.

If you are born male, you may call yourself female if you like, but you will still be held to the physical-fitness standards of other biological males. (The Obama policy decreed that troops could change their gender marker without undergoing sex-reassignment surgery or making any other physical changes.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

“POWER GRAB” THE LEFT’S LUCRATIVE NONPROFITS

September 8th, 2019

 

The Left’s Lucrative Nonprofits

by Kimberly A. Strassel

 

This article originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal on September 5, 2019.

This year’s Democratic presidential candidates have a favorite whipping boy: “powerful interests.” Get ready to hear again in coming weeks how the National Rifle Association rules Washington, how the Koch empire dominates politics, how the right is pouring “dark money” into its agenda. And then remember that these are among the biggest whoppers of the 2020 election. One side will do battle with the aid of a huge and savvy nonprofit political empire—and it isn’t the right. Though the sooner Republicans understand that, the better.


A helpful tutorial arrived this week,
“Power Grab,” a new book by Republican former Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah. Mr. Chaffetz has been digging into nonprofits since his time as House Oversight Committee chairman, and the book details how powerful the liberal nonprofit sector has grown. It may surprise many Americans—those who read daily stories about conservative “influence”—that the likes of the NRA, Judicial Watch and the National Organization for Marriage barely rank by comparison to the assets and revenue of Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union or the Nature Conservancy.

These aren’t only big political players; they’re the biggest political players. In 2018 the nonprofit watchdog Capital Research Center analyzed grants handed out in the 2014 election year by six big foundations on the right (including the Bradley and Charles Koch foundations) versus six on the left (including the Open Society and Tides foundations). Liberal public-policy charities, organized under chapter 501(c)(3) of the tax code, bagged $7.4 billion of this foundation money in 2014. For conservative charities, the figure was a mere $2.2 billion. That $7.4 billion also dwarfed total 2013-14 campaign receipts to federal, state and local campaigns ($4.1 billion) and spending that cycle by independent groups ($830 million).

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

GENERAL FLYNN TURNS TABLES ON PROSECUTORS

September 6th, 2019

 

Flynn Turns Tables on Prosecutors in Major Legal Blitz

September 4, 2019 Updated: September 5, 2019

Attorneys for former national security adviser Michael Flynn launched a major legal challenge in his perjury case on Aug. 30, by seeking a contempt citation against the prosecutors for hiding exculpatory evidence.

The attorneys allege Flynn was targeted for selective prosecution based on illegal surveillance and claim that the office of the special counsel extorted the guilty plea from Flynn.

Sidney Powell, Flynn’s attorney, filed the paperwork for the motions two months after taking over as the defense counsel on the case, replacing the team that Flynn fired in June. Powell, a vociferous critic of government prosecutors, confirmed to The Epoch Times that she ultimately seeks for the case to be dismissed and for Flynn to be exonerated.

The 14-page filing represents the most significant development in Flynn’s case since he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI more than a year ago. Flynn has postponed his sentencing since the guilty plea in order to complete his cooperation with government investigators, including then-special counsel Robert Mueller.

Should the judge side with Flynn on any of the requests, the repercussions would likely expand beyond Flynn’s case, since the defense is demanding for the prosecution to hand over evidence long shielded by the government. These documents—some which have been long withheld, while others are partly redacted—would shed light on the broader special counsel investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, as well as the FBI counterintelligence probe from which it evolved.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

CENSUS BUREAU ENDS PARTNERSHIP WITH CAIR

September 6th, 2019

 

Census Bureau abruptly ends just-announced partnership with Muslim advocacy group CAIR

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  “CAIR is proud to partner with the U.S. Census Bureau to ensure American Muslims are fairly and accurately counted in the 2020 Census,” Nihad Awad, CAIR’s national executive director, said in a news release earlier on Thursday. “Full participation in the census ensures that American Muslims will be better represented in Congress and that their communities receive an equal share in state and federal programs.”

EXCLUSIVE: The Commerce Department on Thursday terminated its just-announced planned partnership with the nation’s largest Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, after Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” asked about the arrangement — given CAIR’s reported ties to the terrorist group Hamas, and its repeated attacks on the president.

“Based on further review, the Census Bureau is no longer partnering with CAIR,” the Commerce Department said in a statement to “Tucker.”

The plan, according to the group, was to enhance outreach efforts to Muslims using CAIR’s network of local offices. The census, conducted once a decade, has been used not only to determine congressional apportionment, but also as a critical planning tool for state, local and federal agencies.

However, CAIR and the Trump administration would have been strange bedfellows — and tension in the relationship was evident earlier Thursday. Reached by Fox News prior to the Census Bureau’s decision, CAIR openly derided the Trump administration as “white supremacist” despite the partnership.

“The Census Bureau, like CAIR, is nonpartisan,” the organization said. “CAIR is not receiving any government funding as part of this project to promote Muslim participation in the U.S. census. We continue to believe that President Trump and his administration promote a white supremacist, anti-immigrant and Islamophobic agenda.”

In its official statement on Wednesday announcing the partnership, however, CAIR sounded a more positive note.

“CAIR is proud to partner with the U.S. Census Bureau to ensure American Muslims are fairly and accurately counted in the 2020 Census,” Nihad Awad, CAIR’s national executive director, said in a news release earlier on Thursday. “Full participation in the census ensures that American Muslims will be better represented in Congress and that their communities receive an equal share in state and federal programs.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

‘SON OF HAMAS”

September 5th, 2019

 

Watch what Mosab Hassan Yousef—“Son of Hamas “—does at the UN:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX-atfFWeq8


www.nydailynews.com/news/world/mosab-hassan-yousef-hamas-prince-spy-israel-article-1.176058

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosab_Hassan_Yousef

www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&source=hp&ei=AoxuXZelNvLv5gLF5oOwDg&q=fact+check+“+son+of+hamas”&oq=fact+check+“+son+of+hamas”&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-hp.3..33i299l2.4200.27935..29186…0.0..0.231.4364.0j20j6……0….1…….0..0i131j0j5j46j33i160j0i22i30j33i22i29i30.Hif8131UzsQ
>
> Here’s the book:

www.amazon.com/Son-Hamas-Gripping-Political-Unthinkable/dp/1414333080

Manna from Heaven…

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

‘NEW LEFT URBANISTS’ WANT TO REMAKE YOUR CITY

September 5th, 2019

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

‘New Left Urbanists’ Want to Remake Your City

It’s about control—using infrastructure to make the masses conform to one vision of how to live.

By Christopher F. Rufo   Mr. Rufo is a contributing editor of City Journal, from whose Summer issue this is adapted
ILLUSTRATION: CHAD CROWE
August 23, 2019

America’s big cities are almost all dominated by the Democratic Party, but the politics of urban development are far from monolithic. In the past few years, a new faction has emerged across the country. Call them the new left urbanists.

These activists have big dreams. They want local governments to rebuild the urban environment—housing, transit, roads and tolls—to achieve social justice, racial justice and net-zero carbon emissions. They rally around slogans such as “ban all cars,” “raze the suburbs” and “single-family housing is white supremacy”—though they’re generally white and affluent themselves, often employed in public or semipublic roles in urban planning, housing development and social advocacy. They treat public housing, mass transit and bike lanes as a holy trinity, and they want to impose their religion on you.

“The residential is political,” wrote new left urbanists David Madden and Peter Marcuse in 2016. “The shape of the housing system is always the outcome of struggles between different groups and classes.” By dictating how cities build new housing, the logic goes, urbanists can dictate how people live and set right society’s socioeconomic, racial and moral deficiencies.

One widely circulated left-urbanist plan from April 2018 comes from the People’s Policy Project, a crowdfunded socialist think tank. The authors, Peter Gowan and Ryan Cooper, envision the construction of 10 million “municipal homes” over the next decade. The proposal imagines local governments building more housing units than the private construction industry and becoming the largest landlord in many cities.

The abysmal record of public housing in the U.S., from crime to decay, makes no difference to these urbanists. They rebrand “housing projects” as “municipal homes” and assert that new units will resemble neighborhoods in Stockholm, Vienna and Helsinki, rather than Detroit, Newark and Oakland.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

‘SOFT JIHAD’ – ARE AMERICAN VOTERS HELPLESS “

September 3rd, 2019

 

Democrat candidates  are falling all over each other to see who can offer more”free stuff”.  The truly serious problem of Islam and Sharia Law subverting our country is not even mentioned.  Nancy  

AMERICAN THINKER
September 2, 2019

Are American Voters Helpless?

  Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American and pro-democracy activist. His biography at CFP states he is “a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran.

There is not a day that goes by that I read comments from all over the social media on major issues that threaten this land of the free. Many Americans know what the problems are, but they are helpless in solving them alone. Why? Because we are a representative republic and expect our elected representatives to know the problems and solve them. Americans love courageous leaders like President Trump and Senator Ted Cruz and despise weak politicians whose only art is playing with nonsocial words.

When was the last time you witnessed a courageous and knowledgeable representative stand up in the U.S. Congress to address the vital issue of Islam’s stealth jihad or Islamic subversion currently exploiting all aspects of American life? I do not remember.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

OBAMA’S LEGACY IN SHREDS

August 31st, 2019

 

Obama’s legacy in shreds

 

How did Barack Obama’s policy legacy turn out to be so fleeting and rickety?

Hadn’t Obama’s ascent transformed a nation forever, stirring the American soul and sending thrills up the leg of the commentariat? Hadn’t his election, as Jesse Jackson Jr., then in Congress rather than on parole, noted, been “so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance?”

Not just anyone can win a Nobel Prize for their “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” before ever engaging in a single act of mediation. Then again, this was a man who had promised to marshal the forces of all mankind, the men and women who’d failed to live up to his lofty expectations for the past 150,000 years, to finally start to “heal” the earth.

Bill Clinton might have felt your pain, but Obama, noted San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford in 2008, was a “lightworker,” imbued with the supernatural ability to intuit exactly what an entire nation was thinking. It was not “merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric,” Morford preached (and gushed), it was that the new president was a “rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment.”

Obama had arrived to sort out the dismal state of human affairs. After years of American conflicts abroad, the progressive Left had finally found a leader to end our wars for oil. Here was a man who would finally inhibit the excesses of Wall Street greed that had driven the nation into the abyss of another depression. On top of all of that, Obama would dislodge the institutionalist’s candidate, moving Democrats past the Clintons forever and into a transcendent new era. He was their Ronald Reagan. Better, even.

Except it never happened. And these days, leading Democrats hardly ever mention the man, and when they do, it’s typically to grouse about something he’s either done or failed to do.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share
Search All Posts
Categories