The Donald did what I thought he did but just got it confirmed:
Most Americans didn’t see what Trump did at SOTU and you were looking right at it
Trump sent a copy of his speech to the Democrats, who immediately wrote scripts to trash his speech before the address and right after the address based on The Copy he sent them. Then he gave a completely different speech. All their rebuttals were 100% off base!
That’s why Nancy Pelosi was looking at all that paper during Trump’s speech, because she realized she got sandbagged by the master. Trump didn’t put into his copy given to Democrats anything about Buzz Aldrin, the cancer child, the ICE agent, the military men, the ones everybody applauded. Because he knew that they were geared NEVER to stand and applaud no matter what he said. But to not clap for those heroes showed them as evil.
Then he pointed out the ladies took 58% of the seats in DC and all those gals in white stood up, remember what Trump said? “Hey, 'You weren't supposed to do that!', remember?”
Now social media is killing the Democrats for only standing up for themselves and not ANYTHING else to help America.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++AOC has proven she is a ding-bat. Has she become Archie's Edith of the Democrat Party or the female equivalent of Michael Moore? (See 1 and 1a repeated postings.)
Is Trump capable of letting Democrats self-destruct? Perhaps takes more self-control than he possesses. (See 1b below.)
++++++++++++++++++++
Remember when liberals railed against $300 toilet seats as they should. Where are they now?
No light bulbs go off when the largess goes to unions enslaved to Democrats.(See 2 below.)
And:
The spending whores are winning again. (See 2a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Between Omar and Ocasio, are Democrats feeling proud of what/who they are fostering? (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Can the conflicted philosophical gap be closed that is ripping our nation apart?
Perhaps, but not before we go though more wrenching. If Trump wins in 2020, expect more of the same because Democrats will never accept their loss and would not see it as a chastening and rebuke They are, by nature, too self-righteous.
If Trump loses then Democrats will have their mandate to move America further left in order to radicalize and destroy our freedoms, bankrupt our nation with inane legislation/spending and replace capitalism with socialism. According to radicals America's casket must be sealed.
And:
Is the political climate right for climate change and will Ocasio's hot air simply make matters worse and at an insurmountable cost? Progressive radicals are always looking for another cause. Makes me green with envy? (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Can a black mind, that is wasting, be resurrected by"informative action?" (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More op ed food for thought:
Daniel Di Martino, USA Today
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Ocasio-Cortez: Only the Latest in a Long Line of 'You're Gonna Die' Con Men
1b) Trump Should Just Let the Democrats Self-Destruct
President Trump has demanded that Ilhan Omar voluntarily resign. The idea of impeachment of another Muslim Democratic congresswoman – Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) is also being actively promoted.
Trump's intervention in the natural self-destruction of the Democratic Party is a strategic mistake. People who in some exceptional circumstances make not rational, but impulsive decisions, are understandable, but concerning these two brainless members of Congress and their third friend – young socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York – there should be a completely different approach.
Instead, they oppose Trump’s harsh policy toward Russia and condemn Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Democrats must decide whether they support Trump’s position on Russia or if they condemn it. They cannot both approve and condemn Trump’s policy toward Russia at the same time. (Well, they can. However, then from a clinical point of view, the Democrats’ only diagnosis is cognitive dissonance.)
The Green New Deal that Democrats unveiled last week has a grand ambition to eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years, retrofit every building in America, and guarantee high-paying jobs in the bargain. If you want to see how that works in the real world, consider the public housing projects near Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s New York office.
The New York City Housing Authority (Nycha) has a more modest goal of a 30% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2027. As part of its plan, Nycha is switching to LED lighting, which lasts longer than incandescent bulbs and consumes less energy. Sounds smart, until you see how many union workers it takes to screw in a light bulb.
For Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, sky-high labor costs are part of the plan. Her Green New Deal resolution would create “high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages” and reinforce “the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain.” It also mandates upgrades for “all existing buildings in the United States” to “achieve maximal energy efficiency.” In this worker’s paradise, there’s a $1,973 LED in every socket.
OMAR: I will take that as a yes.
ABRAMS: I am not going to respond to that kind of personal attack, which is not a question.
1) Ocasio-Cortez: Only the Latest in a Long Line of 'You're Gonna Die' Con Men
In the 1970 tear-jerker Love Story, the dying Ali MacGraw delivers this gem: "Love means not having to say you're sorry." With this declaration by Erich Segal, the author of the best-selling novel, millions were supplied the litmus test for the quality of their relationships: if you are expecting me to apologize for mistreating you, you obviously don't know what love is. We blush.The typical structure of a confidence game has five elements: the perpetrator, the shill, the mark, the offer, and the response. The shill, secretly collaborating with the perp, reassures the mark by appearing objective and kindred to the mark. The mark is the naïve, unsuspecting victim who will suffer some loss. The offer is a perceived positive: receiving something desirable or avoiding something undesirable. The response is what the mark does to receive the offer. No one wants to be the mark, though I daresay all of us have looked back with regret: I can't believe I fell for that (the offer)!
Examples abound. Let's recall a few that are relevant.In the 18th century, Thomas Malthus wrote that exponential population growth would exceed food production and drive humanity to, best-case scenario, endemic poverty. He persuaded and influenced many intellectuals, not the least of whom was Charles Darwin, who incorporated Malthusian theory in his theory of evolution.In the 20th century, Paul Ehrlich, a disciple of Malthus, picked up the baton, insisting that zero population growth was the only solution to stave off massive (hundreds of millions) starvation. Ehrlich's best-selling The Population Bomb (essentially an ecological handbook) sold over two million copies within a few years of publication. The first sentence of the book is "The battle to feed all of humanity is over."Al Gore, erstwhile presidential candidate, has devoted his post-political life to saving the planet from anthropogenic activity. His award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, released in 2006, predicted irreversible global warming and a complete absence of Arctic ice during the summer — both to occur within ten years.Malthus, Ehrlich, and Gore were (and are) taken seriously by highly respected and extremely influential people. Their prophecies were not gentle, advisory alerts; they were apocalyptic, intentionally inciting global fear.
Malthus offered a solution to catastrophic starvation: reduce the population by delaying marriage, thereby producing fewer offspring — the math indicated no more than two children. Two hundred years and a seven fold increase in population later, the main problem with insufficient food is distribution. Note: Malthus married at age 38, and the happy couple had three children.Ehrlich's solution was to hunker down and hope the terror he foretold would shock the world into a thinning of the herd — zero population growth through birth control and sterilization. Fifty years and a twofold increase in population later, the main problem with insufficient food is distribution. Speaking of shills, Ehrlich's book was broadly ignored until he appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, after which it became a bestseller. He returned to the show numerous times (Smithsonian). Note: Ehrlich had a vasectomy...after he had a child.
Gore insisted that the only solution to catastrophic global warming is a massive reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Thirteen years and a 30% increase in annual global CO2 emissions (The International Energy Agency) later, the Arctic has yet to be ice-free. Note: Al Gore's carbon footprint is considerable, with estimates ranging between ten and thirty times that of the average American.All of this brings us to the latest forecast of doom: "The world is gonna end in twelve years if we don't address climate change[.]" So spoke Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez several weeks ago. Much ink has been spilled over Ocasio-Cortez's subsequent infantile, illiterate, and false assertions. There is little need to pile on. But the shills are falling over one another to endorse the "Green New Deal" — the "massive" blueprint for avoiding cataclysm. There is no point in calculating whether Ocasio-Cortez's two million-plus Twitter followers have the aggregate I.Q. of a Comedy Central audience — they and innumerable others are marks, and many of them can vote. They are certainly more vulnerable to frightening hyperbole than past generations who fell under the spell of Malthus, Ehrlich, and Gore. Indeed there are good arguments to suggest that the current crop of adherents are even more resistant to rational discourse.Here's a thought experiment. Standing in front of the Ocasio-Cortez hordes, you explain: supposing for a moment that her dreams have some connection with reality, if Ocasio-Cortez could impose them on America and make them true this very second, it would not add one day to the twelve-year life expectancy she gives the planet — because she cannot impose them on the rest of the world. Persuasive?How many departed from a viewing of Inconvenient Truth unable to dry their eyes from torrential tears shed for those massive, magnificent, majestic, soon to be extinct polar bears? If your heart was not breaking for that cuddly beast unable to save itself because of too thin ice, well...you need to check for a pulse. Such gripping headlines cost innumerable sleepless nights among those sensitive enough to fully grasp the devastating reality: these are polar bears, for heaven's sake, and humanity, out of stupidity and selfishness, is annihilating every last one of them.
This time, there is so much more at stake — the clock is ticking, and the future of all life, not just bears, on Planet Earth hangs in the balance.But let's be fair: the prediction business is devilishly difficult...especially when it pertains to the future. Defenders argue that hyperbole is helpful to starting a conversation, like a slap in the face to get the attention of the person seemingly unaware of the fire in the building. Paul Ehrlich now says his real intent was to make population control an acceptable topic to debate. Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing the challenge of climate change to the attention of the world. Extreme predictions are tactical and justifiable; accusations of hypocrisy are dismissed: pay attention to what they say, not what they do. But such hype and hypocrisy make many rightly suspicious of a different agenda that has little to do with saving the planet.When the fanatical façade is stripped away, it's the same old game: if you want to live, surrender control of your life. The con is on...again.1a) 3 Democrat Policies that Must Die for America to Survive
By Elad Hakim
In 1838, Abraham Lincoln spoke before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. There, Lincoln observed that "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." While Lincoln was talking about the dangers of slavery, his message also applies today. More particularly, congressional Democrats are so obsessed with defeating the president that they have lost touch with reality. Some of the proposed policies by those on the far left will serve to destroy the country from within by leaving the country more porous, more vulnerable, and in dire financial shape. For this reason, these far-left policies must be rejected.ImmigrationAlmost three weeks ago, President Trump announced a three-week temporary end to the partial government shutdown that did not include funding for a border wall. In doing so, he put country over politics and put the onus on the Democrats to negotiate in good faith and to put partisan politics aside on the issue of border security. The three-week period ends today. According to the Washington Examiner, just days away from another potential government shutdown, House and Senate negotiators reached a "bipartisan" deal "in principle" that provided 1.375 billion dollars in funding for physical barriers along 55 miles of the Rio Grande Valley. In addition, per PBS, the deal would include "funding for U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain an average of 45,274 people a day for the rest of this fiscal year, which Democrats assert would force ICE to cut daily detentions for the rest of the year.If the president does not have adequate funds to build the wall, our borders will remain highly porous, and people who are in the country illegally could be set free. In addition, "Senate Democrats recently introduced legislation to prevent the president from using military and disaster relief funds to construct the U.S.-Mexico border wall should he declare a national emergency," according to The Hill. In other words, they blatantly attempted to circumvent the president's powers under the National Emergency Act.The Democrats' refusal to adequately fund the border wall simply to get back at the president is dangerous and leaves the country more porous and more vulnerable.
Taxes
According to some of the far left, the time has come to significantly raise taxes on the wealthy. There is no better example than the State of New York. According to the New York Post, Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren (D) and New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently proposed that "Americans who happen to be very rich pay upward of 70 percent tax on their incomes." Ocasio-Cortez intended to use the tax hike to fund her Green New Deal. According toAmericans for Tax Reform, "[t]he current top federal income tax rate is 37 percent, so the Ocasio-Cortez plan will nearly double the tax rate for the top bracket. New York State has a top income tax rate of 8.82 percent while New York City has a top rate of 3.876 percent. So under this proposal, her constituents would pay a top combined income tax rate of 82.7 percent."While some might argue that the "very rich" should pay more in taxes, the "progressive" proposals by Warren and Ocasio-Cortez have historically failed and carry certain risks. For example, the wealthiest people in New York (and elsewhere if other states follow suit) could decide to leave the state for a more tax-friendly environment. Additionally, companies could decide against setting up shop in New York if they face exorbitant taxes, making for fewer job opportunities. This socialistic approach was previously implemented in Sweden and failed miserably.The impact of such exorbitant tax hikes would hurt individuals, businesses, and jobs throughout the country. Sadly, these failures would be the byproduct of our own policies and decisions.
Medicare for All
Medicare for All sounds nice on paper. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and several other Democrats have strongly pushed for this type of system. In essence, this system abolishes Medicare and outlaws private insurance. Therefore, the government controls everyone's medical care and decides on the payment schedules, treatment options, and coverage (and limitations thereto).However, because the government will be paying for all medical care, it will pay doctors and hospitals at reduced rates. As such, since doctors can't make up their losses by billing private insurance (which is barred), they will have to see more patients, thereby reducing the quality of care. This would ultimately hurt everyone. Elderly patients would be hit particularly hard because their medical conditions are typically more complicated, and doctors would push them to the end of the line, given the amount of time it would take to see them. According to The Hill:
There's no disputing what Medicare-for-all would cost. The left-leaning Urban Institute and the right-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimate $32 trillion over 10 years. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wants to hike the marginal rate on the uber-rich to 70 percent. That would raise less than $1 trillion dollars in a decade, a mere fraction of the cost of Medicare-for-all.
Sanders himself offered several tax-hike proposals, including a job-killing hike in the capital gains rate to as much as 64.2 percent, but all of his tax-hike proposals together would bring in less than half the revenue needed.
Here's the bitter truth: According to Congressional Budget Office data, raising $32 trillion in tax revenue would require adding 36 percentage points to the marginal tax rate of every federal income taxpayer in the United States. Not just the rich — everyone. The single woman earning $82,500 and the couple earning $165,000 would see their rates soar from 24 percent to 60 percent. Ouch.As is evident, this far-left system (proposed by some within the United States), is virtually impossible to maintain and is un-sustainable.
The United States is a melting pot with people from all over the world. It is a country that welcomes people with open arms and gives them the opportunity to live the American dream. Our freedoms rely on our nation's laws and policies, the majority of which are just and fair. Unfortunately, some of the proposed policies by those on the far left will serve to seriously hurt the country by leaving the country more porous, more vulnerable, and in dire financial shape. For this reason, these far-left policies must be rejected.Mr. Hakim is a writer, commentator, and practicing attorney. His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Western Journal, American Thinker, and other online publications.
1b) Trump Should Just Let the Democrats Self-Destruct
President Trump has demanded that Ilhan Omar voluntarily resign. The idea of impeachment of another Muslim Democratic congresswoman – Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) is also being actively promoted.
The events surrounding Ilhan Omar, of course, are a shame for America. The anti-Semitic focus of her recent statements is obvious. However, this does not mean that President Trump has an urgent need to intervene in the process of natural political selection and demand the resignation of an anti-Semitic congresswoman.
Trump's intervention in the natural self-destruction of the Democratic Party is a strategic mistake. People who in some exceptional circumstances make not rational, but impulsive decisions, are understandable, but concerning these two brainless members of Congress and their third friend – young socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York – there should be a completely different approach.
By its actions, this trinity guarantees the Democratic Party a very tarnished reputation. Moreover, the longer these ladies will stay in Congress, the more chances America has for an optimistic forecast.
It seems that in January 2019, someone pressed a switch and turned off the brains of the Democrats. Currently, there is chaos and confusion in their minds. For example, they shout that President Trump is a puppet of Russia (which means that Trump, submitting to the Kremlin, must pursue a pro-Russian policy). However, if they really believe this, then the Democrats must demand the exact opposite – a tough stance towards Russia.
Instead, they oppose Trump’s harsh policy toward Russia and condemn Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Democrats must decide whether they support Trump’s position on Russia or if they condemn it. They cannot both approve and condemn Trump’s policy toward Russia at the same time. (Well, they can. However, then from a clinical point of view, the Democrats’ only diagnosis is cognitive dissonance.)
Turning off the brains of American Democrats is not solely happening at the federal level. Do New York Democrats not understand that legally authorizing abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy is a political nightmare? Did none of them think about the consequences of the fact that now, thanks to the Democrats, abortions in New York can be done by any person, and not just by a licensed phsyician? Is it a symptom of mass psychosis or a mass (D)ebilism? Moreover, this criticism does not even touch the moral, religious or legal side of abortion, but only the political side of it.
Anti-Semitism and racism of the modern Democratic Party of the USA have well-known and deep roots. The Democratic Party is the creator of the KKK and the author of the Jim Crow laws. It was the Democratic Administration of President Roosevelt that turned away a ship with Jewish refugees in 1939. A vital role in the refusal of Jewish refugees to go ashore in America was played by Secretary of State Cordell Hull (by the way, it was with him that the shameful history of the undeserved Nobel Peace Prizes began).
It was the Democrats who threw U.S. citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps during World War II. It was the Democrats who became famous for the systematic persecution and extermination of North American Indians. It was the Democrats who were the party of slave owners.
Therefore, the open anti-Semitism of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar should not surprise anybody. It should not be a shock that the former head of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, in February 2017 supported the Muslim (and anti-Semite) Keith Ellison to head the DNC, and in February 2019 openly supported Ilhan Omar in her series of anti-Semitic tweets. Support for her was also expressed by the chief adviser and closest friend of Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett.
The racist scandal of the three top Democrat office holders in the state of Virginia should have ended in 24 hours – the governor should have resigned. A week later, no one in the media would remember this annoying incident, and in a year almost no voter would remember it, and this would not have affected the 2020 election. However, the Democrats have their brains turned off, and the Republicans are wisely silent, and as a result, the Democrats, to their horror, continue to tear each other apart.
Do the events in Virginia not give everyone a vivid example of what the correct position should be when one’s political opponents are digging a hole for themselves?
Do none of the present inhabitants of the White House know the phrase (which is attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte): “Never interrupt your opponent when he makes a mistake”?
Does President Trump want to deprive American politics of the remarkable socialistic useful idiots who, in their Green New Deal, propose eliminating the entire aviation industry, the entire oil and gas industry, and ultimately stopping meat production? Doesn't anyone understand that Senator Cory “Spartacus” Booker's militant vegetarianism is not a winning strategy for presidential elections?
Doesn’t President Trump not see that the new House of Representatives, in which the Democrats are the majority now, has handed a vast amount of political ammunition to Republicans within just a few weeks after coming to power? Moreover, they did it for free.
Let us hope that in the end, Trump will correct this mistake.
The brainless socialistic women’s trinity should not be expelled from Congress. They should be silently encouraged and allowed to self-destruct not only themselves but their entire party with impunity.
Americans should stock up on popcorn.
Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles. Follow him on Twitter.
2)++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
$1,973 LEDs and the Green New Deal
How many union workers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
The Editorial Board
The Green New Deal that Democrats unveiled last week has a grand ambition to eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years, retrofit every building in America, and guarantee high-paying jobs in the bargain. If you want to see how that works in the real world, consider the public housing projects near Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s New York office.
The New York City Housing Authority (Nycha) has a more modest goal of a 30% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2027. As part of its plan, Nycha is switching to LED lighting, which lasts longer than incandescent bulbs and consumes less energy. Sounds smart, until you see how many union workers it takes to screw in a light bulb.
One recent project focused on 23 housing developments, and changing the light bulbs and fixtures there cost $33.2 million. Supplies account for a fraction of that cost. Under Nycha’s Project Labor Agreement, electricians make $81 in base pay and $54 in fringe per hour, and overtime is usually time and a half. Add administrative and contracting expenses. All in, Nycha paid an average of $1,973 per apartment to install LEDs.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal also states that a Green New Deal “must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership” with both labor and low-income families. But if she visited the Nycha homes, she may find those mandates are at odds.
“I can buy LED myself,” said Barbara Jones, 69, who has lived in Cypress Hills since her 20s and is dismayed by the disrepair. Others we interviewed said they’d rather see money go first to getting rid of vermin, mold and lead paint, tidying filthy premises, or improving safety.
Nycha also updated the heat and hot water systems in addition to upgrading the lights at these 23 developments, and the total cost for the energy-efficiency overhaul was $68.7 million. A Consolidated Edison grant covered $8.25 million, but Nycha took out a loan to cover the rest. The housing authority has three similar projects in construction at other developments, and the total cost for all four is $271.8 million.
LED lights and other energy-efficiency upgrades may drive Nycha’s utility bills down, but those savings aren’t directly passed on to taxpayers for as long as 20 years. Under the federal Energy Performance Contracting Program, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development continues to reimburse Nycha for utilities at pre-LED levels. Public housing authorities must spend a minimum of 75% of their savings on servicing the loan and other project costs, but they have more discretion over the rest.
In the private economy, $1,973 could go a long way toward improving a dilapidated apartment. Only in the world of green government spending is replacing light bulbs for two grand a unit a cost-saving measure.
2a) The bipartisan spending binge is now worse than under Bush and Obama
We’re now $22 trillion in debt, yet despite all that red ink, the Mexican cartels have control of our border and we’re not one bit closer to spending money on our own security. We’ve gone into deep debt for everything except the core function of the federal government.
2a) The bipartisan spending binge is now worse than under Bush and Obama
We’re now $22 trillion in debt, yet despite all that red ink, the Mexican cartels have control of our border and we’re not one bit closer to spending money on our own security. We’ve gone into deep debt for everything except the core function of the federal government.
It feels like it was yesterday when I was watching the news as a kid with my parents in 1995, listening to Newt Gingrich, during the infamous shutdown fight, warn about the dire consequences of crossing the $5 trillion debt milestone. It feels like it was yesterday when I was writing press releases for candidates in “the year of the Tea Party” on how Obama and the Pelosi Congress took the debt to $14 trillion in such a short period of time. Now, over eight years into varying degrees of GOP control of Congress and the White House, we have crossed the $22 trillion mark, expanding the debt more rapidly than at any time in our history. Whereas the debt exploded by $5 trillion during Bush’s eight-year tenure, a shocking figure at the time, it has now increased $8 trillion just since Republicans controlled the House in 2011 and by $4 trillion over the past four years, since they controlled at least two of the three political organs of government.
Now, the only question Republicans have is how many pennies of border security they will fight for, while refusing to challenge any of the non-essential and even harmful programs of the federal government. The GOP platform on debt and spending is a lie from top to bottom, as Republicans plan to pass more budget bills allowing us to blow through the budget caps without any effort to systemically reform the way we budget.
Now that Republicans are planning to cave on border funding, can they at least force a confrontation with Democrats over spending levels for functions of government that are nowhere near as important as border security? Thus, departments like HUD, which were able to completely shut down for a month with nobody noticing, will continue to enjoy record spending. We will continue to provide security for Kabul and Baghdad with the beefed-up military budget since last year’s budget deal, but no funding for our border or meaningful use of the military to protect our own sovereignty from the daily incursions by the most brutal cartels on earth.
Why even have a Republican Party any more?
Even more indefensible, unlike during the end of Bush’s years and the beginning of Obama’s tenure, when we first began accruing trillion-dollar annual deficits, we are not facing a deep recession. In fact, we are enjoying the most robust period of job growth since the late 1990s, and revenue is at a record high baseline.
Let it be known for all of time that dire predictions of revenue slumping as a result of the tax cuts were fake news. The entirety of the current deficit problem is due to increased spending. According to the latest monthly report released by the Treasury Department yesterday, spending was up 9.6 percent for the first three months of fiscal year 2019 relative to the first three months of FY 2018. What about revenues? They actually rose slightly by 0.2 percent, despite some declines in certain revenue categories. This is an important statistic, because it is the first clean metric we have comparing a period of time with the tax cuts in full implementation to a period before the tax cuts.
Moreover, some of the increased tax revenue from more payroll taxes likely would not have occurred without the job creation spawned by the tax cuts. If you isolate the revenue tallies for individual and corporate taxes, the government obviously did lose some revenue in certain categories, but it was made up by a $15 billion increase in payroll tax revenue (FICA, Social Security taxes), in addition to increased revenue from excise taxes.
The annual deficit after just three months stood at $319 trillion, well on pace to smash the trillion-dollar deficit mark for the first time in a booming economy.
Thus, this bipartisan era of debt is worse than anything we’ve seen this generation, and it is all happening with record revenue and a booming economy – with no world war consuming our economy and budget.
Thanks to Republican-approved budget deals, for the first three months of the fiscal year, outlays for HHS are up 12.5 percent, outlays for the Department of Education spiked 23 percent, and outlays for the Department of Commerce have doubled! Meanwhile, outlays on Homeland Security have actually been down by 30 percent because of less disaster spending under FEMA than last year. But it’s not like we went on a spending binge for Border Patrol and ICE. Outlays on military spending are up 8.45 percent, but again, what is the purpose of the military if we use it everywhere else in the world except against those who most directly harm us at our own border?
All of this spending is creating a crisis with interest payments on the debt. Net interest payments for the first quarter are up to $100 billion. That is an annualized pace of $400 billion, almost twice the level it has been in recent years. And this is just the beginning.
What is driving the most debt? The issue where Republicans now agree with Democrats: socialized medicine. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is now bashing the Freedom Caucus for opposing the key element of Obamacare responsible for driving up the cost of insurance, thereby generating the massive spending and the monopoly created by the health care industry.
Health care is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Federal spending on health care (not including state expenditures) is projected to be $17 trillion over the next 10 years, dwarfing the cost of Social Security and the military. By 2047, health care spending will be about 25 percent greater than the insolvent and crushing cost of Social Security. As such, health care in itself is the largest driver of the other great crisis, as noted: the mushrooming cost of the interest on the debt itself. Health care spending alone will be greater than all the revenue from payroll taxes and corporate income taxes combined and almost as large as individual income tax revenue.
This is all going to the creation of a monopoly in a circuitous death spiral of price inflation and increased government spending. It’s no mystery why our national expenditures on health care have popped from $27 billion in 1960 to over $3.3 trillion today. Assuming health care would rise at the same rate as the rest of the economy, that number would be under $250 billion today. If we flushed $1.6 trillion down the toilet every year, we’d come out with a better result because we’d just waste money. Now, we are taking that wasted money and artificially inflating the cost of health care to the point that nobody can afford it without government continuing the death spiral of spending, monopolizing, and price inflation.
Yet Republicans have acquiesced to every degree of this baseline and are only debating how much more socialized medicine they will countenance while fake-fighting the rest. Then they will say we have to agree to the new socialized medicine in order to fight the next plan. Rinse and repeat.
Now, instead of looking to cut spending elsewhere, Republican senators met with Ivanka Trump to see how they can create a new entitlement of paid family leave like they have in Europe, but of course without adding to the deficit and distorting our job market! They will find a “conservative way” to agree to Democrats.
With the deficits for FY 2019 skyrocketing just as much as the illegal immigration numbers, at some point conservatives need to asses their rate of return on the Republican Party.
Author: Daniel Horowitz
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Ilhan Omar’s History of America
The United States as Cold War villain
By James Freeman
Not that it will make Israelis feel any better, but Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) doesn’t seem to like America all that much, either.
Shortly after apologizing for anti-Semitic comments, the House freshman Democrat set about trashing America’s conduct during its successful Cold War against the Soviet empire.
Rep. Omar’s views may not have been entirely clear to Minnesota voters last November. A public broadcasting report shortly before her November election to the U.S. House described her this way:
Omar fled her native Somalia when she was 8 years old and spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya. She came to the US as a 12-year-old and eventually settled in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis, which has long been a first stop for new arrivals in the US. There, she “fell in love with democracy” and started spending time as a community organizer until she ran for office.
... For Omar, the inspiration to get involved in politics came from her family, who were always talking about politics, world news and democracy over meals.
Omar fled her native Somalia when she was 8 years old and spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya. She came to the US as a 12-year-old and eventually settled in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis, which has long been a first stop for new arrivals in the US. There, she “fell in love with democracy” and started spending time as a community organizer until she ran for office.
... For Omar, the inspiration to get involved in politics came from her family, who were always talking about politics, world news and democracy over meals.
But in a New York Times report almost two months after last year’s election, her experience in America didn’t exactly sound like a love affair:
Her arrival in this country was the first time, Ms. Omar has said, that she had confronted “my otherness” as both a black person and a Muslim. She became a citizen in 2000, when she was 17. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, she decided to wear the hijab, as an open declaration of her identity. But from “the first day we arrived in America,” she said, she concluded that it was not the golden land that she had heard about.
“I think back to the orientations I went through a little over 20 years ago in the process of coming to this country, and in those orientations they did not have people who were homeless. There was an America that extended liberty and justice to everyone. There was an America where prosperity was guaranteed regardless of where you were born and what you looked like and who you prayed to,” she said, adding, “I wasn’t comfortable with that hypocrisy.”
Her arrival in this country was the first time, Ms. Omar has said, that she had confronted “my otherness” as both a black person and a Muslim. She became a citizen in 2000, when she was 17. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, she decided to wear the hijab, as an open declaration of her identity. But from “the first day we arrived in America,” she said, she concluded that it was not the golden land that she had heard about.
“I think back to the orientations I went through a little over 20 years ago in the process of coming to this country, and in those orientations they did not have people who were homeless. There was an America that extended liberty and justice to everyone. There was an America where prosperity was guaranteed regardless of where you were born and what you looked like and who you prayed to,” she said, adding, “I wasn’t comfortable with that hypocrisy.”
Many Americans are no doubt sorry our country didn’t live up to her expectations. But if Ms. Omar thought prosperity in America was guaranteed, the fault lies with those expectations. The real guarantee that has inspired millions of people to come to this land is the freedom to succeed or fail.
And while Rep. Omar may claim that she “fell in love with democracy,” recent events suggest it was at best a temporary crush. How else to explain her recent tweet echoing the propaganda of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as he presides over a humanitarian disaster and prevents the restoration of that country’s democracy? Wrote Rep. Omar:
A US backed coup in Venezuela is not a solution to the dire issues they face. Trump’s efforts to install a far right opposition will only incite violence and further destabilize the region. We must support Mexico, Uruguay & the Vatican’s efforts to facilitate a peaceful dialogue.
A US backed coup in Venezuela is not a solution to the dire issues they face. Trump’s efforts to install a far right opposition will only incite violence and further destabilize the region. We must support Mexico, Uruguay & the Vatican’s efforts to facilitate a peaceful dialogue.
There is no U.S.-backed coup. As the Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady explained recently, the Venezuelan constitution gives the democratically elected National Assembly the power to declare Mr. Maduro’s 2018 re-election invalid. “It did so at the time because the election didn’t meet minimum democratic standards. The Lima Group of Latin American nations, Canada, the Group of Seven leading industrial nations and the European Union all refused to recognize the election for the same reasons,” noted Ms. O’Grady, adding:
As a result, when Mr. Maduro’s first term expired on Jan. 10 there was no legitimately elected president and the seat was legally vacant. According to the constitution, the job then fell to the president of the National Assembly, Mr. Guaidó. The U.S. didn’t “anoint” him president, nor did he anoint himself; he is constitutionally obligated to accept the role for an interim period and organize a new election.
Dozens of democracies around the world have recognized Mr. Guaidó’s government, called for a new presidential election, or both. He has the backing of the Organization of American States, the Lima Group and the European Parliament.
As a result, when Mr. Maduro’s first term expired on Jan. 10 there was no legitimately elected president and the seat was legally vacant. According to the constitution, the job then fell to the president of the National Assembly, Mr. Guaidó. The U.S. didn’t “anoint” him president, nor did he anoint himself; he is constitutionally obligated to accept the role for an interim period and organize a new election.
Dozens of democracies around the world have recognized Mr. Guaidó’s government, called for a new presidential election, or both. He has the backing of the Organization of American States, the Lima Group and the European Parliament.
The Venezuelan people are desperate to end the era of misery and hyperinflation. But this week Rep. Omar used an appearance on Capitol Hill by Elliott Abrams, the U.S. special envoy to Venezuela, to try to score political points on behalf of Mr. Maduro. RealClearPolitics has a video of the amazing exchange at the House foreign relations committee in which Rep. Omar essentially expressed the Marxist view of the Cold War. She attacked the former Reagan administration official for a 1982 atrocity in El Salvador by U.S.-backed forces that massacred hundreds of people. She didn’t mention that during the Cold War America’s communist foes massacred a hundred million people in atrocities too numerous to count.
Here’s RealClear’s transcript:
REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): ...You later said that the U.S. policy in El Salvador was a fabulous achievement. Yes or no do you still think so?
ABRAMS: From the day that President Duarte was elected in a free election to this day, El Salvador has been a democracy. That’s a fabulous achievement.
OMAR: Yes or no, do you think that massacre was a fabulous achievement that happened under our watch?
Abrams: That is a ridiculous question.
Omar: yes or no?
REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): ...You later said that the U.S. policy in El Salvador was a fabulous achievement. Yes or no do you still think so?
ABRAMS: From the day that President Duarte was elected in a free election to this day, El Salvador has been a democracy. That’s a fabulous achievement.
OMAR: Yes or no, do you think that massacre was a fabulous achievement that happened under our watch?
Abrams: That is a ridiculous question.
Omar: yes or no?
OMAR: I will take that as a yes.
ABRAMS: I am not going to respond to that kind of personal attack, which is not a question.
Rep. Omar wasn’t done. “Yes or no, would you support an armed faction within Venezuela that engages in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide if you believed they were serving U.S. interests, as you did in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala?” she asked.
Whose interest is Rep. Omar serving?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) America Is Torn Between
Trump’s Fibs and
Progressives’ Fantasies
By Lance Morrow
The president is a master of little lies, but the left rejects the big truths that sustain politics and culture.
As a teenager in the 1930s, my mother was an idealistic, card-carrying member of the Communist Party. Then came Stalin’s Moscow show trials. The scales fell from her eyes. She quit the party. Her Philadelphia cell declared her “an enemy of the people.” She was proud of that, but she went on listening to Paul Robeson records. As the years passed she gave up Trotsky for Adlai Stevenson.
My father, meantime, became an editor at the Saturday Evening Post in the days after World War II, when America was able to imagine itself as a Norman Rockwell painting. After that, he served for many years as an aide to Gov. and later Vice President Nelson Rockefeller. One night in 1979, he announced Rockefeller’s death before the television cameras. He thought it his duty as a gentleman to lie about the circumstances, and he never got over the shame of that lie.
I absorbed the point of view of both communists and Rockefellers. My parents had both started as magazine journalists, and I followed them in that work. It permitted a third way. In those days, inconsistency, ambivalence and political confusion could be ennobled as “objectivity.” It wasn’t yet considered unprincipled for a journalist to be able to see both sides of an issue.
My double-mindedness persists in the Age of Trump, as the passions of my parents’ 1930s seem to replay themselves in 21st-century variations.
One interesting similarity between the eras is the presence of accomplished illusionists in the White House—Franklin Roosevelt and Donald Trump.
But the two men are opposites in all other respects, with different politics and purposes and ways of doing their hair, and different places in history. They would not have liked each other. Roosevelt would have called Mr. Trump “that dreadful man.”
Only in the techniques of truth and lies, and in treating the presidency as performance art, would FDR and DJT have admitted a fleeting affinity. They have entertained the world with a few of the same tricks. Roosevelt was an impresario of fake news. Mr. Trump’s tweets might be seen as FDR’s fireside chats in a different idiom.
The ’30s are a vanished world. Much of the 20th century has become a sort of Atlantis, and analogies between the old time and our own are tenuous. A political archaeologist might find that the most reliable common denominator is what could be called the unchanging metaphysics of lying. As Francis Bacon wrote 400 years ago, human beings have a “natural though corrupt love of the lie itself.”
Mr. Trump works with huckster falsehoods—the flashy superlatives of a car salesman. The progressive left works with conceptual falsities. Voters in 2020 will decide which style of lies they prefer.
Mr. Trump composes his reality after the manner of a Renaissance painter’s pentimento, except that he works at the speed of Twitter , making adjustments as circumstances shift. He slaps new paint over old facts when they become inconvenient. Mr. Trump’s abuses, he and his followers believe, somehow come right by coalescing in a larger truth—the mythic America that radiated from my father’s old Saturday Evening Post and came to its apotheosis in the Neverland of Dwight Eisenhower’s 1950s.
The progressive left embraces new visions of perfection—tamer in its methods than its 1930s predecessors, but sometimes outdistancing them in the fusion of dogmatic correctness with a fairly advanced decadence. Progressives are busy reinventing the Kingdom of God on Earth, trying to make their version as different as possible from his. They contrive elaborate new genders, for example—ones the deity didn’t think of. They invent vocabularies, terms ecstatic and bristling—“cisgendered,” “heteronormative,” “intersectionality”—designed to bully reality into compliance.
Their version of the kingdom mixes hopes of social justice with sexual nullifications and revenge fantasies. In my mother’s time, the far left in its dreams crushed capitalism and ushered the workers into paradise. Today they sweep white civilization and toxic males into the dustbin of history.
Affirmative action, now a permanent fixture of American society, remains out of step with the country’s basic idea of fairness.
“Diversity,” politicized and bureaucratically institutionalized, forms the basis for systems of un-American coercion.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s notion of valuing a man’s character over the color of his skin remains the gold standard, and yet even his greatest admirers claim it doesn’t really apply anymore—or never did.
The progressive notion of gender as a “social construct,” rather than sex as a fact of nature, contradicts ages worth of human experience about the biological roles of men and women in the drama of procreation and survival.
The rule of law is cast aside for a 13th-century dream of open borders and sanctuary cities.
The left disparages masculinity as evil and Western civilization as monstrous, hoping to extinguish the intellectual and moral legacy that created the U.S. in the first place. If we are not careful, the strategy might work.
The 1930s came to a violent end on Sept. 1, 1939, when the Nazis marched into Poland. Thus began World War II. Three weeks later, I was born in a small hospital in downtown Philadelphia whose normal business was performing illegal abortions. I am delighted that they made an exception in my case.
Mr. Morrow, a journalist and essayist, is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Green New Deal Would Barely Change
Earth’s Temperature. Here Are the
Facts.
Here’s the most important fact about the Green New Deal: It wouldn’t work.
Ultimately, fully implementing the Green New Deal would have no meaningful impact on global temperatures.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., released their much-anticipated blueprint for a Green New Deal Thursday.
And make no mistake: If implemented, the Green New Deal would bring huge changes to our country. According to an FAQ put out by Ocasio-Cortez’s office, this new deal is “a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The plan additionally asks Americans to “upgrade or replace every building in U.S. for state-of-the-art energy efficiency” and to “build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.”
That’s not even all. Far from being just an energy and climate resolution, the Green New Deal resolution is a wish list for big government spending, expansive government control, and massive amounts of wealth distribution. As Ocasio-Cortez told NPR, “the heart of the Green New Deal is about social justice.”
Ultimately, this deal would fundamentally change how people produce and consume energy, harvest crops, raise livestock, build homes, drive cars, travel long distances, and manufacture goods. And it wouldn’t even work.
Green New Deal Wouldn’t Change Climate Significantly
But here’s the key thing: Even if Americans were on board with this radical change in behavior and lifestyle, it wouldn’t change our climate.
In fact, the U.S. could cut its carbon dioxide emissions 100 percent and it would not make a difference in abating global warming.
Using the same climate sensitivity (the warming effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions) as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its modeling, the world would be only 0.137 degree Celsius cooler by 2100. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278 degree Celsius by the turn of the century.
One of the biggest sources of carbon dioxide emissions is developing countries.
But while one of the priorities of the Green New Deal is to make the U.S. a lead exporter in green technologies, assuming developing countries will forgo cheap, abundant carbon dioxide-emitting energy for more expensive intermittent sources is pure fantasy.
Yes, developing countries will likely expand their use of renewable power sources over time, but not to the extent it will have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. While some countries are shuttering their coal-fired plants, others in both developed and developing countries are building new plants and expanding the life of existing generators.
After all, affordable, reliable, and widely available energy is essential to lifting people out of poverty and improving the life, health, and comfort of people trying to reach a better standard of living.
Americans Could Face Hundreds of Dollars in New Energy Costs Monthly
But not only would the Green New Deal be ineffective, it would also almost certainly impose steep costs on Americans, via increased energy bills.
The resolution calls for deriving 100 percent of America’s electricity from “clean, renewable, and zero-emission” energy sources—a steep increase from the 63 percent of electricity that came from carbon dioxide-emitting conventional fuels in 2017. Nuclear power was responsible for another 20 percent. But, according to the FAQ sheet, “The Green New Deal makes new fossil fuel infrastructure or nuclear plants unnecessary. This is a massive mobilization of all our resources into renewable energies.”
The proposal also calls for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and other infrastructure as much as technologically feasible. Yet, as recently as 2017, petroleum accounted for 92 percent of America’s transportation fuel.
To achieve these targets, the resolution proposes a massive government spending program in addition to carbon dioxide taxes, subsidies, and regulation. How are Americans going to pay for it?
Don’t worry, the FAQ answers that one: “We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war—with public money appropriated by Congress. Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment.”
Credibly estimating the cost of the Green New Deal for American taxpayers, households, and businesses is exceedingly difficult. Even projecting the cost of switching to 100 percent renewable power for electricity relies on a set of largely unknowable assumptions. How companies would make large-scale investments to meet the mandate and how intermittent power sources would receive backup power is mostly a guessing game.
Technological challenges aside, the upfront capital costs would reach trillions of dollars. Trillions of dollars of energy existing assets (coal, nuclear, natural gas plants, etc.) would be stranded and lost.
In effect, the result would be households potentially paying hundreds of dollars more per month in their electricity bill.
Green New Deal Could Lead to Millions of Lost Jobs
Even more concerning, the direct impact from higher energy costs is just a small part of the story. Energy is a necessary input for nearly all of the goods and services consumers buy. Consequently, Americans will pay more for food, health care, education, clothes, and every other good or service that requires energy to make and transport.
In fact, Heritage Foundation economists used the Heritage Energy Model, a derivative of the Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Modeling System, to model the economic impacts of a carbon tax, which Green New Deal advocates admit would only be one tiny fraction of the entire plan.
Each carbon tax analysis found an average shortfall of hundreds of thousands of jobs with peak year unemployment reaching over 1 million jobs lost and half the job losses coming in energy-intensive manufacturing industries.
Over a 20-year period, the total income loss would be tens of thousands of dollars and the aggregate gross domestic product loss would be over $2.5 trillion. If policymakers spent, taxed, and regulated to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions for America’s transportation, agricultural, and industrial sectors, the costs would be several orders of magnitude higher.
Importantly, Americans have little appetite to pay such costs. In fact, a recent Associated Press poll found that 68 percent of Americans oppose paying an additional $10 per month to fight climate change. The protests in France are quite indicative of how people feel about costly climate policies.
The Broad Scope of the Green New Deal
Furthermore, the Green New Deal would affect a lot more than energy. Guaranteeing high quality health care, education, and a job with a family-sustaining wage are all part of this new deal.
And don’t forget the egregious amount of spending that would result in energy cronyism and corporate welfare on steroids—essentially, taxpayer dollars from hardworking families going to line the pockets of companies like Tesla and Solyndra.
Don’t worry, though. These Green New Deal proponents do admit they can’t quite get everything done in 10 years. According to the FAQ sheet:
We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.
We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.
Moderation itself.
In the end, this massive government-planned, taxpayer-funded plan is a raw deal for Americans—and a totally ineffective climate policy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) Breaking the Left's Deception of Black Americans
With earbuds in my ears and wired to my phone, I listen to national Christian broadcasts during my daily walk. Back to back, I heard two black pastors with large congregations. It was stunning hearing how clueless both men were regarding the truth of various political issues.
Both pastors parroted Democrats' and fake news media's lies in their sermons. Between the two, they rebuked Republicans for hatefully wanting to build a wall to “keep people out”. They blamed Republicans for foolishly shutting down the government, which caused 800,000 employees to suffer unpaid. They scolded Republicans for cruelly separating children from their parents. Each allegation against Republicans was a misrepresentation of the truth; rooted in Democrats' and fake news media's longtime lie that Republicans are racist and mean.
The Border Wall. Americans welcome immigrants who enter our country legally. The border wall is to stop the invasion of illegals which includes sex traffickers, drug dealers and violent criminals. Stats confirm that walls are effective. Hypocritically, Democrats who preach that building a wall to keep Americans safe is racist and mean live in highly secured communities behind walls.
The Government Shutdown. In essence, Democrats shutdown the government by refusing to sign a budget with a piddly $5 billion towards the border wall. Democrats claim the wall, at a cost of $25 billion, is too expensive. Meanwhile, we are spending $135 billion annually for freebies to illegals. Democrats want the free flow of unskilled needy illegals invading our country to become new Democrat voters. The dirty little secret is illegal aliens are already voting for Democrats in our elections.
Separating Children. Democrats authored the law separating children from their parents at the border. Trump said he hates the law. Fake news and Democrats are using this Democrat law to portray Trump as a villain. Meanwhile, Democrats and fake news elevate to sainthood irresponsible foreign parents who send their children unaccompanied to make the extremely dangerous journey to America. Border agents report 12-year-old illegal alien girls armed with birth control, Plan B pills, due to the high probability of being raped along the way. What kind of parents subject their children to such horrors?
A white friend left a tearful message on my phone. Kelly was heartbroken over the loss of her 40-year friendship with a black woman. The two women and their husbands vacationed together; shared family joys and sorrows together. They never discussed politics. Out of the blue, the black woman phoned Kelly to rant about Trump's racism. Kelly gave numerous examples of why Trump is not a racist. She touted Trump's excellent record of hiring blacks. She included how Trump fought the old-guard racism of Palm Beach golf clubs. Trump opened Mar-a-Lago and insisted that blacks and Jews be admitted.
The conversation between Kelly and her longtime friend ended with the black woman saying, “I never thought you would support a racist.”
I returned Kelly's heartfelt phone call. I told Kelly to pray that God will open the eyes of her deceived black friend. I handed the phone to my wife. Mary counseled Kelly to mourn the loss of her friend and trust God to fill the void.
The next day Kelly sent me a note saying she had decided to send her black friend a letter telling her that she loves her. Kelly said she will include my article, “State of the Union Destroys ‘Trump is Racist’ Lie”.
My younger brother Jerry is the only Republican in his all-black Baptist church in Baltimore. He confronted his black pastor about routinely including rants about how Trump and Republicans are racist in his sermons. Jerry told the pastor about how years ago, Trump gave Jesse Jackson office space for his PUSH organization. Jerry explained that the KKK was founded by Democrats. He touted Democrats' history of perceiving blacks as inferior and opposing black liberation. None of these truths impacted his pastor's disdain for Trump and Republicans. Jerry feels led to remain in his church, letting his light shine and speaking out for what is right.
Jerry said since political facts seem useless in breaking his pastor's blind loyalty to Democrats, he will approach it using biblical scripture. What can I say, folks -- our dad was a preacher.
Jerry has scheduled a meeting with his pastor and the church elders. He will speak to them using, Matthew 16:33. “But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness....” Jerry will go down the list of all the things Democrats are pushing which are in conflict with the kingdom of God and his righteousness.
I applaud my brother Jerry and my friend Kelly for not giving up. Both are seeking ways to break leftists' stronghold on the hearts and minds of deceived black Americans. The Bible says, ”Seek and ye shall find.”
My dad, Dr. Rev. Lloyd E. Marcus, recently passed at age 90. I brought home a book from Dad's library titled, The Magic of Thinking Big by David J. Schwartz. The book says your mind is a “thought factory” either dominated by Mr. Triumph or Mr. Defeat. Both are extremely obedient, triggered by your instructions. Mr. Triumph produces ways for you to win. Mr. Defeat nurtures ways for you to fail. I can testify to the truth of this concept in the book.
Frustrated, I whined about how unfair it was that nothing I did seemed to lower my blood sugar. Committed to win, I put Mr. Triumph in charge, thinking of things I needed to do differently. After several adjustments in my diet and exercise, my blood sugar numbers have dramatically improved. I focused totally on thinking of ways to win. The Bible says, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”
My fellow Americans, we can whine about how evil leftists control mainstream and social media. Or, we can place Mr. Triumph in charge of our thinking, focusing on creative ways to educate our fellow American low-info voters. I fully intend to continue praying, trusting God and spreading truth.
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment