A Fair Share of the Tax Burden

Liberal Democrat politicians love to insist that their priority, when tax reform becomes the topic of discussion, is to force successful people to pay “their fair share” of taxes. The wealthy are frequently described as greedy people who gained their wealth at the expense of the poor.

However, according to the latest statistics from the Office of Management and Budget, the top 20 percent of American taxpayers currently pay a whopping 95 percent of all tax revenue collected. In other words, 80 percent of American taxpayers are currently getting a free ride at the expense of the people working hard to achieve success. Is that what is considered equality in the land of the free, and the home of the brave?

Or is this in reality the land of the greedy, and the home of tax slaves?

For most of my life, corrupt politicians with insatiable appetites for taxpayer dollars to be used to buy votes from their constituents have demonized Americans for creating wealth, and convinced the majority of the citizens (a.k.a. beneficiaries) that punishing success is somehow good and noble, instead of being wicked and evil.

However, those same politicians and the media don’t hesitate to play favorites. They vilify wealthy Americans perceived to be conservative such as the Koch brothers, but ignore wealthy liberal donors like Tom Steyer, who just funded a $10 million dollar advertising campaign calling for the impeachment of President Trump, and of course George Soros, who has funded a wide variety of groups and activities designed to benefit liberal Democrat politicians.

Ironically, in the video above, filmed during the presidency of Bill Clinton, Soros is described as “Donald Trump without the humility.” Now, just let that thought marinate in your brain for a few minutes. Soros is such a hypocrite that he claimed he was only trying to “do the right thing” when he helped Nelson Mandela develop strategies to protect the economy of South Africa from unscrupulous currency speculators like himself, but then he declines to register his investment firm with the Securities and Exchange Commission. avoiding the same regulations that he helped impose on his competition. Political donations and “philanthropy” are used to buy these people political influence.

Similarly, the U.S. tax code has been weaponized and used to pit Americans against each other in a perpetual battle of class warfare. The tax code is a monstrous but clever method to manipulate the behavior of the majority. Because builders and everyone else in the real estate business wants people to buy houses, the tax code incentivizes home ownership. Children are also considered a deduction by the  tax code. If Americans really understood the lies, half-truths and deceptions being used to manipulate them, the vast majority of the general public would be outraged. But most regular people don’t have the slightest idea what politicians are really saying when they talk about our money.

Normal families use zero-based budgeting — meaning if you have zero dollars, that’s approximately how much money you can spend. As an example to illustrate the point, let’s say Joe Blow and his family earns $2,000 per month. The mortgage is $800, and utilities another $200. That leaves $1,000 for groceries, a car payment, entertainment, and everything else the Blow family needs. If Joe gets a raise, the monthly budget adjusts upward. If he loses his job, they will be forced to survive on any savings until new employment can be secured and the income stream replaced. If Joe tries to print his own money, he’ll get arrested for counterfeiting.

Conversely, the federal government uses baseline-budgeting, which has no relationship to reality whatsoever. If Joe’s income stream dips, he’s got to conserve money, so Joe is probably going to cancel the cable service, and eat hamburgers instead of steaks. The federal government never cuts back. They can legally print money whenever they want. But their rhetoric grotesquely distorts reality for ordinary Americans. When politicians are shrieking about so-called draconian spending cuts to the federal budget, they are lying. The federal government almost never cuts spending. In reality the politicians are only arguing about reductions in the future rate of increased spending.

Remember when Democrats in Congress kept harping that children would starve because of draconian cuts to the funding of school lunch programs? It sounded horrible, evil and cruel. There was only one problem. None of it was true. There was never going to be a reduction in the amount of money being spent on school lunches. They were arguing about a reduced percentage in the rate of increase to be spent on school lunches in future years.

President Trump is the first chief executive in recent memory to actually implement targeted, real spending cuts to specific federal programs. Even though the dollar amounts were more symbolic than meaningful in terms of reducing the deficit or lowering the debt, it is certainly a step in the right direction. Trillions of dollars in wealth have been redistributed from wealthy Americans who have achieved success to greedy politicians in Washington. Just enough of the proceeds are shared with the people who pay no taxes to buy their votes, so the vicious cycle may continue.

It isn’t fair that twenty percent of the population bears 95 percent of the tax burden. It’s immoral, and it ought to be criminal. But it shouldn’t be a surprise. Politicians are some of the greediest and unscrupulous people on earth. The highest tax bracket for a U.S. taxpayer in 2017 is a whopping 39.6 percent, yet for a politician, that still isn’t high enough. The evil rich must be punished, unless they also happen to be political donors.

By comparison, God only asks for 10 percent of our income.

BREAKING: First Charges Reportedly Filed In Russia-Trump Investigation

The first heads may soon roll as a consequence of the Special Counsel investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 election.

A federal grand jury in Washington, DC, on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter. 

The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources said. It is unclear what the charges are.

As Special Counsel, Mueller has led the investigation into Russian collusion and potential obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump and his associates, since James Comey’s firing in May.  Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller and has ultimate oversight, due to AG Jeff Sessions’ recusal.  Rosenstein would have been aware of the charges before filing.

While nothing is yet known about these charges, it is known that the investigative team has been examining former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn, and others over ties to Russia.  So that could be an indication as to who if not yet what.

Following the back and forth this week over the Russia-Trump dossier, this is certain to only enflame the situation even more.  Some will take these charges as proof of Trump’s guilt, and others will instantly scream witch hunt.  But political wishcasting doesn’t make them true or false.  That is the purpose of a trial.

Any charges against individuals should be seen as just that – charges against INDIVIDUALS.  They don’t prove anything one way or the other regarding anyone else.  With that being said, it is not uncommon to have indicted persons flip and start testifying against bosses and colleagues.  So depending on what happens, more dominos could fall and bigger fish could be caught, which may be Mueller’s ultimate goal here.  Only time will tell.

Eric Chase Bolling Joined Thousands of Tragic Teen Opioid Deaths. It Has to Stop

Eric Chase Bolling was 19 years old when he was found in his bed, dead. The son of former Fox News host Eric Bolling’s death was ruled “an accidental overdose that included opioids.”

 

If you’re not a parent who has lost a child, you cannot possibly understand the grief and stress that the Bollings are experiencing. If you haven’t lost a teenager to opioids, you can’t stand on your soapbox and tell everyone how young Chase’s death could have been avoided.

He joined thousands of teens just like him who succumbed to the tragedy of opioids.

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) finds that overdose deaths among 15-to-19 year olds spiked more than 19% between 2014 and 2015. Prior to the increase, the death rate from drug overdoses actually fell 26% from 2007 to 2014.

Just three grams of Fentanyl is enough to cause an overdose. Fentanyl is everywhere. It’s prescribed for post-surgical pain, for cancer patients, and a while array of pain management protocols. Patches and pills are common. OxyContin and other opioids are flooding markets at an unprecedented rate.

Thursday afternoon, President Trump declared a national health emergency for opioids. All that’s necessary for us to fix this problem is the national will to do so.

“We can be the generation the ends the opioid epidemic. We can do it.”

The Hill reported that there’s only $57,000 currently allocated to deal with this kind of declaration, but Congress can allocate whatever they want. They should. They must.

Some problems cannot be solved by the will to do so. Violence, sin, and crime are matters of the heart. But drug addiction is one we can control better than we do. It might take money and changes to our medical procedures, but why would we not do it, simply because it’s hard and complex?

Money should not really be a limiting factor here. We didn’t put an economic limit on beating the Axis powers in World War II–the war had to be won, and the Greatest Generation had to be the generation to do it. This drug-addiction enemy is just as pernicious and dangerous. If we have another “war on drugs,” it needs to be this.

Congress must act. For the sake of Eric Chase Bolling and a whole generation of kids at risk for sudden death, we must summon the will to do what President Trump encouraged us to do: be the generation that ends the opioid epidemic.

Like Trump said, we can do it. We must do it.

 

Why Is The FBI Ignoring A Congressional Subpoena?

The FBI is and has been ignoring a subpoena from Rep. Devin Nunes R-CA, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and has done so since it was issued August 24.

This past Wednesday, Speaker Paul Ryan R-WI announced he supported Chairman Nunes, and stood behind the subpoena 100%:

“We’ve had these document requests with the administration, the FBI in particular, for a long time, and they’ve been stonewalling,” Ryan said in an interview with Reuters. “The FBI and the Justice Department need to give Congress the documents it has been requesting, and they need to do so immediately.”

While it’s always important for Congress to strenuously enforce its outstanding subpoenas, one has to wonder why they are being put in this position by the Trump Administration in the first place.

It is puzzling why a GOP congressional committee is having a difficult time with a GOP led Department of Justice. Attorney General Jeff Session, (a former Republican senator), who was appointed by President Trump, and was the first senator to endorse his candidacy. Furthermore,  FBI Director Christopher Wray had served in more than one role within President Bush’s administration and was appointed by President Trump for his current position.

So, why are two Republicans now serving in President Trump’s administration resisting a subpoena which is seeking information about the Russian Steele Dossier. Which as we all know by now, is a Trump opposition research document, funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

There are a few reasons, which while understandable, cannot be supported nor condoned. Each of these reasons involve one of the players in this ongoing saga:

  1. Christopher Wray: You’d think Director Wray would have no problem complying with the subpoena. He wasn’t there during the time in question, being a a litigation partner with King & Spalding. However, there is no doubt this is going to be a huge embarrassment to the FBI.  It is possible that some in the FBI might lose their jobs, or be demoted. There is no question this is a huge black eye,  and morale has to be a concern for the newly appointed Director. I believe he is waiting on a directive from his superiors at the Department of Justice ordering him to comply. Waiting on an order would give him some semblance of cover inside the department. This would allow him to show he put his people and the department first, but in the end had no choice but to obey his boss at the DOJ.
  2. If that is the case, then why hasn’t the DOJ stepped in and ordered the FBI to obey the House Intelligence Committee subpoena? It is quite possible Attorney General Session, having recused himself from all things Russia and Hillary Clinton, can’t legitimately climb over that Chinese wall in an attempt to push past this imbroglio.
  3. If this is the case, then the responsibility falls to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. As U.S. Attorney, appointed by President Bush, he was the lead DOJ supervisor for the secret FBI investigation into the corruption case. He worked alongside then Director Robert Mueller, and with Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Additionally, he appointed Mr. Mueller to his current position of Special Counsel in charge of the ongoing Russian collusion investigation.

It would appear Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is responsible for disregarding the congressional subpoenas. This wouldn’t be surprising, given the fact that he has done the President no favors since being appointed. His decision to appoint Mueller was hasty at best, at worse it was a shot across the President’s bow. Perhaps he is just another swamp creature inhibiting the administration’s progress.

It is incumbent on the President to order the Deputy Attorney General to obey these and future subpoenas forthwith. This disrespect for the rule of law and Congress gives the appearance of either a chaotic DOJ or a disloyal one. Heaven help us if it’s both.

 

Orrin Hatch Intends to Retire. Mitt Romney Intends to Replace Him.




It was probably just as well Conservative activists who had pushed out former Senator Bob Bennett during a Utah Convention were already plotting against Hatch.

This seat should be safely Republican, but the question will be which kind of Republican? Given how Utahans feel about Donald Trump, it is probably no wonder that Mitt Romney wants to run for the seat.

Senator Orrin Hatch has privately told allies in Utah that he is planning to retire at the end of his term next year, and if he does, Mitt Romney intends to run for his seat, according to five sources familiar with the situation. “Nothing has changed since The Atlantic published a carbon copy of this same story in April, likely with the same anonymous sources who were no more informed on the Senator’s thinking than they seem to be now,” said Dave Hansen, a spokesperson for Hatch. “Senator Hatch is focused on leading the Senate’s efforts to pass historic tax reform, confirming strong judges to courts around the country, and continuing to fight through the gridlock to deliver results for Utah. He has not made a final decision about whether or not to seek reelection, but plans to by the end of the year.” He declined to comment on what Hatch has told allies in private. A spokesperson for Romney declined to comment for this story.

Conservatives need someone who can help Mike Lee in the Senate and I’m not sure Romney is the guy. But I suspect he would be the front runner if he chose to throw his hat in the ring.

Who Called a British Newspaper Minutes Before JFK Was Assassinated?

Nothing conjures up more conspiracy talk than the Kennedy assassination. Regardless of what the endless investigations have concluded, you can poll a hundred people and get a hundred different opinions on what happened.

Now that the Trump administration has released tons of files on the assassination, one document in particular is garnering more than its share of attention. An FBI memo declares that an anonymous caller informed the Cambridge News in the United Kingdom that big news was coming from the United States a full 25 minutes before the assassination took place.

A tipster called a Cambridge News reporter at 6:05 p.m. local time – 12:05 in Dallas – and told him to “call the American Embassy in London for some big news” before hanging up. The assassination occurred at 12:30 p.m. Dallas time.

Here are some excerpts from the transcript of the memo:

The British Security Service (MI-5) has reported that at 1805 GMY on 22 November an anonymous telephone call was made in Cambridge, England, to the senior reporter of the Cambridge News. The caller said only that the Cambridge News reporter should call the American Embassy in London for some big news and then hung up.

After the word of the President’s death was received the reporter informed the Cambridge police of the anonymous call and the police informed MI-5. The important point is that the call was made, according to MI-5 calculations, about 25 minutes before the President was shot. The Cambridge reporter had never received a call of this kind before and MI-5 state that he is known to them as a sound and loyal person with no security record.

MI-5 noted that similar anonymous phone calls of a strangely coincidental nature have been received by persons in the U.K. over the past year…

Crazy, isn’t it? But what could it mean? Who would have known what was going on, and who would have called a British newspaper less than half an hour before the shooting took place?

Honestly, I don’t think it means anything. The memo references other coincidental anonymous calls to British nationals around the same time, so the call most likely had fortuitous timing. Other documents suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald had spoken with a KGB assassin shortly before the Kennedy assassination, so it’s possible that other Communists knew what Oswald had planned. But I think that the memo doesn’t suggest anything of substance.

Everything I’ve seen, read, and heard points to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone in killing John F. Kennedy, and even with the mystery and weirdness surrounding documents like this one, I don’t think there’s anything in the release that will prove otherwise.

Catholic Students Under Fire at Georgetown for Being Catholic

It’s a frequent topic of concern in Christian circles: watching high school graduates go to college and embrace worldliness, thereby graduating church at the same time. Observing that frequent phenomenon I can’t help but be somewhat amused at the pretension so many of these collegiate youth maintain.

They truly convince themselves that they are rebels, unique, and distinct, forward-thinking individuals when in reality they are the living embodiment of conformity. There is nothing rebellious about doing what everyone else does. You exhibit no individuality to adopt the same views on society, culture, and sexuality as the echo chamber around you. Doing so doesn’t make you strong; it demonstrates how weak you are.

If you want to see strength, look for the students on college campuses who maintain their faith convictions, submit to a moral authority that exists beyond their own lusts and urges, and who let their words and conduct be a living testimony of the truth. The ones who endure the mockery, disdain, accusations, prejudice, and discrimination of the worldly peers around them – including, all too often, their professors and administrators:

Love Saxa is a recognized student group on the Georgetown campus, and it exists “to promote healthy relationships on campus through cultivating a proper understanding of sex, gender, marriage, and family among Georgetown students.”… [it] is in danger of being stripped of its status as an official student group. Its offense: holding to a Catholic view of human sexuality.

.

On September 6, Georgetown’s student newspaper, The Hoya, published [Group president Amelia] Irvine’s “Confessions of a College Virgin.” In it, Irvine describes Love Saxa’s dedication to “healthy relationships and sexual integrity,” including its stance on premarital sex, sexual complementarity, and same-sex marriage. Suffice it to say, in an age where universities commonly use school funds to sponsor “sex weeks” and lectures by porn stars, Love Saxa seeks to stimulate an embrace of chastity.

.

The resulting outrage was palpable. In a complaint filed with the university through its internal grievance process, student Jasmin Ouseph issued a blistering critique of Love Saxa’s “violent…dehumanizing…hateful, and…dangerous” “rhetoric.” Ouseph left no doubt of her desired outcome, stating “what I’m asking for is for Love Saxa to no longer be recognized by the University.” The Hoya’s editorial board likewise published a response to Irvine’s “Confessions,” imploring the Student Activities Commission to “defund intolerance.”

Georgetown is considering doing just that in the next few days.

No doubt this is a pathetic commentary on the state of tolerance amongst those who tout their allegiance to open-mindedness and inclusivity. But it’s actually worse than that given that Georgetown touts itself, “the oldest Catholic and Jesuit institute of higher learning in the United States” and is “deeply rooted in the Catholic faith.”

In case you’re curious, the Catholic Church has some pretty unwavering teachings about sex, marriage, and family. But the anything goes world of humanistic relativism on college campuses does too. And while weak conformists scurry to embrace the latter, the integrity of the kids who are a part of Love Saxa courageously cling to the former.

Georgetown will soon make clear where they are really “rooted.”

The Progressive Push For Popular Vote

They haven’t stopped whining since early in the morning on November 9, 2016. Despite Democrat criticisms of Donald Trump as being a danger to democracy for saying he might not accept the election results, it actually seems to be Hillary Clinton and her enablers that are dangerous to our republic. Now DNC chair Tom Perez has taken it to a new level. He’s just lying. According to the Washington Free Beacon:

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated “the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution” during a Tuesday night speech.

“The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution,” Perez said during a lecture at Indiana University Law School. “It doesn’t have to be there.”

According to the article, Perez went on to whine about Hillary having won the popular vote echoing Clinton’s own comments that the election was somehow illegitimate and suggesting we look to Kenya as a model for how to create a mechanism for overturning an election. I’m not kidding. She really said that.

Despite Democrat claims to the contrary we do not live in a democracy, by design. A brief review of the writings of the Founders will demonstrate some of the things they feared most in setting up a central government was the tyranny of the majority and the states becoming subservient to a monolithic central power. So we live in a Constitutional Republic. Say it slowly with me Democrats, Re-Pub-lic. See it isn’t so hard.

Some of the primary tools by which the Framers attempted to ensure that large and more populous states, like Texas and California, could not hold undue sway over smaller and less populous states, such as Montana and Rhode Island was the method by which we elected both Senators and the President.

Well, the Progressives in the early 20th century “fixed” how we elected Senators. Much to our detriment in this writer’s humble opinion. Now elected by popular vote, Senators have lost accountability to the government of their home state. Furthermore, they have become entrenched career politicians complicit in the expansion of federal power far beyond the intent of the Founders. Yes, Mitch and Diane, I’m looking at you.

The Progressive movement grew out of the Industrial Revolution in the late 19th and early 20th century due to rapid and fundamental economic changes. Now are dealing with the second wave of Progressives. In their zeal to address the problems posed by a society undergoing significant change due to technology and the global economy,  they desire a strong central government to ensure “fairness” and solve the problems that these changes bring. This is obvious in the popularity of Left-wing darlings, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

Their new obstacle? The Electoral College. You see, the Progressives have conquered many population centers including California, Oregon, Illinois and New York. In Texas and Georgia, they have made inroads in the large urban centers. If they can remove the last remaining obstacle to a government based only on popular vote, they can nearly ensure a Progressive candidate will head the Executive branch for the foreseeable future.

To achieve the destruction of the last remaining obstacle to State subservience to the Federal behemoth, they will continue the narrative of popular vote being more important and even resort to lying as Perez did in his speech. The Electoral College is enshrined in Article II if the Constitution for an explicit purpose.

Georgia is not California. Wyoming is not New York. And as incredulous as it may seem, those of us living in states that have not fallen victim to the Progressive mindset don’t want to be governed from the center as if we have. We don’t want to regulate pet stores. A law forcing public funding of abortion for any reason up until the moment of birth would also meet with quite a bit of resistance. These are just a few examples.

In this political moment, the entire national discussion has become so polarized, it’s often toxic. The differences between the coastal blue states and vast swaths of red states in the middle and to the south have been laid bare. Are red state voters really supposed to contemplate submitting to the will of large urban populations? All because Democrats and Progressives can’t get over the fact they ran a horrible retail candidate, who is ever more demonstrably corrupt, and lost?

Thank goodness the Founder’s had the wisdom to give us one more tool. The Amendment process. As is correct these are ratified by the states requiring a high bar for consensus before an overhaul to the Constitution can be affected. May we all bow to their far-reaching wisdom and thank our lucky stars the reign of Barack Obama gave us so many Republican run states. Or on January 20, 2020, you would be almost certainly choking on the phrase “President Harris”.