SURPRISE: Georgia GOP Condemns Casino Gambling




In a somewhat unexpected move, the Georgia Republican Party passed a resolution this weekend condemning casino gambling legislation. The casino gambling issue was one of several resolutions leftover from the state GOP convention on June 2nd. The chairman’s race, which contained 4 different candidates and required multiple ballots, ran late into the afternoon, preventing any further business. The newly elected chairman, John Watson, convened a committee to address the unfinished business. That committee met this weekend. The AJC is reporting that the committee passed the resolution “overwhelmingly.”

Watson, a former lobbyist for casino gambling legislation in the state, was viewed by conservatives with a great deal of skepticism. Some members of the GOP expected the committee to bury the resolution and avoid any potential embarrassment for Watson’s former employers. The chairman recused himself for the vote, and the resolution passed.



I must admit, John Watson’s ties to casino gambling did make me a bit uneasy at first. The 11th hour sheenanigans last session to quietly revive casino gambling made a lot of conservatives question the integrity of the process. What lengths would special interests go to legalize casinos in Georgia? I will be the first to say, Chairman Watson earned a great deal of respect in my eyes for his handling of the resolution. Putting this issue behind us should allow the Ga GOP to focus on fundraising and organization for the 2018 elections. I just hope the legislature takes notice. The full text of the resolution is provided below.
WHEREAS, Georgia Republican legislators have introduced legislation that would allow for casino gambling in Georgia; and

WHEREAS, the gambling bills now mask the negative connotations of casino gambling by referring to casinos euphemistically as “destination resorts”; and

WHEREAS, the usual arguments for opening the state to casino and horse racing continue to be, “this will create jobs” and “it is for the children” because it will generate revenue for Pre- K and for the HOPE scholarship, and

WHEREAS, these reasons fail to overcome the substantial societal costs of casino and horse racing, which include:

  1. because gamblers are twice as likely to divorce as non- gamblers,
  2. an increase in local crime by at least ten percent within five years or less after the establishment of a casino, including an increase in prostitution;
  3. local job loss because local citizens change their spending habits,
  4. an increase in bankruptcies, and
  5. an increase in child neglect and domestic violence; and

WHEREAS, all tax payers, including non-gamblers, end up paying higher taxes for these publicly borne social costs; and

WHEREAS, the proposed establishment of the gambling industry in Georgia violates free- market principles by instituting a politically protected industry that will drain customers from legitimate businesses not similarly protected; and

WHEREAS, once the gambling industry is allowed to operate legally in the state, its lobbying power will grow and increase its influence over legislators and local community officials; and

WHEREAS, once the State of Georgia allows Class III gambling, this would open the door for any Indian tribe to “venue shop” for property to open casinos on land that would be taken out of the governance of the State and off the local tax digest; and

WHEREAS, the State should not have a vested interest in predatory activities such as gambling for the sake of filling State coffers at the expense of ruined lives and broken families;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, We, the delegates of Georgia Republican Convention, urge the members of the Georgia Legislature to cease and desist with any efforts to open the State of Georgia to casino and horse racing;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Secretary of Georgia Republican Party Convention is directed to immediately transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to the Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and to all elected Republican officials in the Georgia Senate and in the Georgia House; to the Honorable Nathan Deal, Governor of the State of Georgia, the Honorable Casey Cagle, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Georgia; and to the Honorable David Ralston, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

GREAT: Department of Justice to Target Affirmative Action




Race based acceptance policies on college campuses have long been a polarizing issue in both the court of law, and the court of public opinion. President Obama was a staunch advocate of affirmative action, but it appears the Department of Justice will be cracking down on racially motivated acceptance policies under the leadership of Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions. From the Daily Wire,

On Tuesday, the Trump Department of Justice announced that they would move to combat the racism inherent in college admissions affirmative action. Instead of using the DOJ Civil Rights Division as a sort of defense mechanism for radical leftist groups, as the Obama administration did, the Trump administration will use the office to crack down on actual discrimination, pursuing “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions,” according to an internal document.



Based on the collective meltdown from the left on social media, you’d think this order will completely destroy education as we know it. Personally, I think Chief Justice Roberts said it best,

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race

Discrimination based on race, no matter which race is being discriminated against, is always an indefensible position. While I absolutely believe that discriminatory housing practices of the ’60s and ’70s cause minorities to experience some of the worst effects of our crippled education system, race based affirmative action does nothing to solve that problem.

It is true, no two schools are the same. The typical suburban school, which may be 70-80% white, probably does a better job of equipping students than the typical inner city school. That has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with resources. Schools in densely populated areas have more students per teacher and less money per student. It makes logical sense: the more students you have in a small area, the harder it is to give them the attention and the resources they need. The issue then becomes racially charged because inner city schools have higher African American populations, largely due to discriminatory housing practices in the 60s and 70s.

Affirmative action exacerbates the issue by taking students from impoverished school systems and dropping them into highly competitive college programs, essentially setting them up for failure. There are exceptionally gifted students in these impoverished school systems that have the ability to be wildly successful in college given the proper preparation. Colleges absolutely should make every effort to find those gifted students, give them the tools they need to succeed, and allow them to pursue advanced education. But race based admissions criteria does not do that.

Race based admissions largely pulls minorities from suburban schools, where they have received the same education as the average high school graduate. There is no reason to expect that their abilities are any better than their peers with similar transcripts and test scores, yet they are often elevated into more difficult programs. This sets them up for failure, setting higher expectations for African American students than a similar student of a different ethnicity. Affirmative action also punishes some students, especially Asian Americans, restricting their access to higher education.

A Princeton University study showed that blacks received a “bonus” of 230 points on SAT scores versus their competitors on the old 1600-point scale; by contrast, Asians are penalized 50 points.

If we truly want to address disparity in education, we should start by giving inner city kids access to better schools. That means increased choice and competition between school systems, instead of trapping students in failing schools. If colleges choose to look for gifted students from impoverished school districts, those efforts should be geographically based, not race based. They should also provide programs to help prepare students in ways their high school could not. The status quo of race based admissions does nothing but hurt minority students and perpetuate racial discrimination, and it needs to end.

Drain the Swamp: Steve Bannon Pushes for Tax Hikes





While the Republican Party includes a rather large ideological spectrum, there are some things that we generally all agree on. Republicans, at least on the campaign trail, are the pro-life party. Republicans support limited government, lower taxes, decreased spending, and Obamacare repeal. Unfortunately, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins aren’t the only big government liberals hiding in our ranks. Steve “New Deal” Bannon is reportedly pushing a tax hike on high income earners as part of a potential Trump tax reform. From The Intercept,



Top White House adviser Steve Bannon is pushing for tax reform to include a new 44 percent top marginal tax rate, hitting people who earn more than $5 million a year, with the revenue paying for tax cuts for the rest, according to three people who’ve spoken to him recently.

Bannon, the former CEO of Breitbart News, is not shy about his anything-but-conservative governing philosophy. Back in January I wrote about Bannon’s “Third New Deal” infrastructure plan he laid out in a post-election interview.

It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan….We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s

Tax. And. Spend. Seems pretty similar to the economic strategy espoused by Trump’s White House predecessor, President Obama. Americans rejected the FDR style tax and spend policy in November when they handed Hillary Clinton and embarrassing electoral defeat. Why does Bannon feel the need to give Democrats a voice in the White House? Tax and spend policy does not work. It restricts economic growth, cutting revenue in the long term, and driving resources to overseas tax havens. You can never successfully overcome the spending gap with more taxes.

According to IRS data, just over 43,000 people filed tax returns for the year 2014 claiming income of at least $5 million, accounting for $600 billion in taxes, or 8.8 percent of the total taxes paid.

Even if we account for 100% of the taxes paid by this top tax bracket ($600 billion), we still could not fund Bannon’s “Third New Deal.” When you look at the projected income from his tax hike, things look even more bleak.

The new rate would only apply to about a third of that money, as the 44 percent kicks in at the $5 million level. Still, the hike would pull in around $18 billion per year, or $180 billion over 10 years.

How are we going to pay for a trillion dollar infrastructure plan with $18 billion a year? Conservatives got a huge win with Justice Gorsuch, but big government liberals are hurting Trump’s chances of delivering on Obamacare repeal and conservative tax reform. Just like Lisa Murkowski, Steve Bannon has got to go. They are no friends to conservatives.

 

 

 

WATCH: Al Gore can’t Defend His Inconvenient Lies





Al Gore has always had a tenuous relationship with the truth. He enjoys using it in the title of his documentaries, but that’s about it. In 2006 he made the bold prediction that, in 10 years, we would surpass the point of no return. Now, 11 years later, Al Gore is still flying around in his private jet, pimping the environment for personal gain. Some of you may be wonder why, you know, we haven’t actually passed the point of no return. Mr. Gore was recently confronted by PJ media’s Nicholas Ballasy about that conundrum.

Ballasy: “Looking back on that prediction, why did you make the prediction at the time and are you making a new one right now given the current circumstances?”

Gore: “Well, first of all, we’ve seen a lot of progress since the first movie came out. We have the Paris agreement now. The cost of renewable energy has come down so quickly that people are switching over. Unfortunately, some elements of the Earth system have crossed a point of no return”

In reality, Gore gave three different answers, all of which contradict with each other. Let’s break it down.

“Well, first of all, we’ve seen a lot of progress since the first movie came out. We have the Paris agreement now”

The obvious implication here is that the Paris agreement is just the type of progress we need to prevent the earth from reaching the “point of no return” in 2016, as Gore originally predicted. Look, we solved the problem with the big government globalist approach, three cheers for big government! There’s only one problem, the Paris agreement was adopted in December of 2015, just one month before the we were all doomed to “the point of no return.” Talk about waiting until the last minute!

“The cost of renewable energy has come down so quickly that people are switching over.”

Now we have a different answer. We’ve managed to save the world and avert the 2016 doomsday crisis by switching to alternative energy. While this is admittedly the most feasible answer of the three, it’s still rather laughable for a couple of reasons. I still see a ton of those evil, gas guzzling SUV’s on the road today. Not only do people still drive gasoline powered cars, but gas is a fraction of the cost of 2006. While I admittedly drive a hybrid SUV, it is purely for economic reasons, and I am still in the minority. Could it be that economics and free market government could have caused us to drive more fuel efficient cars, saving the world? Not so fast, Gore surely couldn’t allow free market capitalism to be the hero.

“Unfortunately, some elements of the Earth system have crossed a point of no return”

Turns out there are multiple points of no return, and we have already crossed some of them. You can’t make this stuff up, folks. To recap, 1)we haven’t crossed the point of no return because big government saved us, 2)we haven’t crossed the point of no return because the market saved us, 3)we’ve passed some of the points of no return but Al Gore can save us with his private jet.

If climate change is happening, Al Gore is 100% responsible. Americans see this clown parading around in his private jet, lying and profiting from fake science, and it makes them incredibly skeptical. There are honest and hardworking scientists conducting research that are being smeared by both sides of the political firestorm Gore has created. We will probably never know the real truth regarding climate change, but we will certainly see the impact of Gore’s big government ideas. Society really should stop taking this conman seriously.

RINO ALERT: Senators Lisa Murkowski and Shelley Capito Save Obamacare

It appears that the straight Obamacare repeal vote will fail to reach the 50 votes needed to pass. Republicans hold a slim 52-48 majority in the Senate, with Vice President Pence able to break a 50-50 tie. Since Democrats will never vote to repeal the ACA, that means Republicans can only afford two defectors. Susan Collins (R-ME) voted against ACA repeal when it was passed in 2015 and vetoed by Barack Obama. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Shelley Capito (R-WV) voted for repeal in 2015, but have both publicly come out against straight repeal.

Capito issued a statement saying, “My position on this issue is driven by its impact on West Virginians…With that in mind, I cannot vote to repeal Obamacare without a replacement plan that addresses my concerns and the needs of West Virginians.”

Murkowski offered a similar response, “I think what has to happen is the Republicans have to admit that some of the things in the ACA, we actually liked, and the Democrats have to admit that some of the things they voted for in the ACA are broken and need to be fixed,”

While it is incredibly disappointing that Collins is not on board with repeal, it is downright disgusting that Murkowski and Capito have flipped with a Republican President. They were on board with repeal when there was no possibility of it happening. Now they’ve sold out their constituents, their party, and the American people that have overwhelmingly elected Republicans for the past 8 years.

The impacts of opposing straight repeal, after previously supporting it, are giagantic. In 2010 Republicans said we need the House to repeal Obamacare, and we gave them the House. In 2014 Republicans said we need the Senate to repeal Obamacare. In 2015, Lisa Murkowski and Shelley Capito said they would support repeal, but we need a President that won’t veto. In response, we gave them the White House. Now these two Senators are making the Republican Party into liars, and the American people don’t like it. If the GOP loses the Senate or House in 2018, it will be Murkowski and Capito’s fault.

The people of Alaska and West Virginia should remember this moment. If supporting Obamacare doesn’t doom your political career, lying about it certainly should. Efforts should be underway right now to primary both of these “Republican” senators. Democrats don’t need Hillary, they have Lisa Murkowski.

Canadian Sniper Sets Record with Two Mile Shot

The Canadian Armed Forces confirmed yesterday that a sniper in Iraq established a new world record with a 3,540 meter kill shot. The shot happened sometime in the past month in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and was confirmed by multiple witnesses. For reference, 3,540 meters is a little over two miles. From the Globe and Mail:

“The Canadian Special Operations Command can confirm that a member of Joint Task Force 2 successfully hit a target at 3,540 metres,” the forces said in a statement. “For operational security reasons and to preserve the safety of our personnel and our Coalition partners we will not discuss precise details on when and how this incident took place.”

That’s one heck of a shot. Reportedly the bullet was in flight for roughly ten seconds. My physics skills are a little rusty (I may have skipped physics class a few times to go fishing), but I guestimate the bullet drop for a 10 second flight to be around 98 meters, or a little longer than a football field.

“The shot in question actually disrupted a Daesh [Islamic State] attack on Iraqi security forces,” said a military source.  “Instead of dropping a bomb that could potentially kill civilians in the area, it is a very precise application of force and because it was so far way, the bad guys didn’t have a clue what was happening.”

At that range, the .50 cal bullet reached the target before the sound of the gunshot. The confusion, carnage, and outright terror of standing next to the target would be enough for anyone to give up and go home. At that point they have no idea where the shot came from, and no way to do anything about it if they did know.

“Hard data on this. It isn’t an opinion. It isn’t an approximation. There is a second location with eyes on with all the right equipment to capture exactly what the shot was,” another military source said. A military insider told The Globe: “This is an incredible feat. It is a world record that might never be equalled.”

Given all of the factors in play, it would take a miracle to beat such a record. Even if it’s a perfect shot, if the target individual moves at all over the course of 10 seconds, the round won’t hit the target. That doesn’t take into account bullet drop, wind, or a myriad of other factors.

“It is at the distance where you have to account not just for the ballistics of the round, which change over time and distance, you have to adjust for wind, and the wind would be swirling,” said a source with expertise in training Canadian special forces. “You have to adjust for him firing from a higher location downward and as the round drops you have to account for that. And from that distance you actually have to account for the curvature of the Earth.”

God bless the military, especially snipers.

ACLU and WaPo: Trump Supporters Find Two Unlikely Allies

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler recently told reporters that “hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment” in his attempt to convince the federal government to stop alt-right gatherings and protests. Any self respecting constitutionalist, or frankly, anyone who is vaguely familiar with the Constitution, knows this statement is absolutely false. For example, look no further than the Washington Post and the ACLU, who have both condemned Wheeler’s statement.

The Washington Post published a scathing response titled “‘Hate Speech not Protected by the First Amendment’, Portland Mayor says. He’s Wrong” and ACLU Oregon released the following statement on Facebook.

“It may be tempting to shut down free speech we disagree with, but once we allow the government to decide what we can say, see, or hear, or who we can gather with, history shows us that the most marginalized will be disproportionately censored and punished for unpopular speech.”

As the WaPo article states, “history and precedent are not on Wheeler’s side.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech, no matter how bigoted or offensive, is free speech.

The high court did so in 1969, when it found that a state law banning public speech that advocates for illegal activities violated the constitutional rights of a Ku Klux Klan leader.

It did so again in 1992, when the justices found that a city ordinance prohibiting the display of symbols that arouse anger toward someone based on race, religion and other factors is unconstitutional.

And again in 2011, when the court ruled in favor of church members who picketed and carried signs with homophobic slurs at a soldier’s funeral.

The protections of the Constitution separates our democratic republic from similar revolutions across the world, such as the French Revolution that overthrew the monarch and handed the keys to a dictator. When we begin to curtail those protections based on arbitrary terms like “hate speech”, we might as well throw out the Constitution all together.

Non-offense speech doesn’t need protection. You don’t need Constitutional protection to say things everyone agrees with. Not only does the Constitution protect “hate speech”–whatever the heck that is–it only truly protects offensive speech. That’s the nature of Constitutional protection.

While you may not expect ACLU and WaPo to defend Trump supporters, this overreach by Mayor Wheeler has put him clearly in the wrong. Sometimes you have to be willing to side with the truth, rather than your political allies. It’s a necessary first step in addressing the horrible political polarization in our society, and it should apply to both sides of the aisle. If the left is willing to call out their own when they get it wrong, we need to stop losing our minds when conservatives do the same with President Trump.

 

Trump: We Should Spend More on Healthcare

Donald Trump, in his unfiltered twitter glory, suggested today that we need to “add more dollars to Healthcare” in this country. The only redeeming quality of this tweet is the astoundingly poor word choice that districts from the incredibly leftist message.

Add more dollars? Who talks like that? “Spend more money” is the exact same number of characters. The tweet doesn’t have to sound like it’s written by an 8 year old. Seriously, did Bernie Sanders’ great grandson hack the President’s twitter? Was Donald hoping that his crazy word choice would distract people from his apparent plan to spend MORE money than Obama did?

Republicans have a real problem on their hands. Americans are well aware of Trump’s twitter tirades, his poor grasp of the English language, his divisive nature, and all of the baggage that comes with Donald Trump. But despite it all, we elected Donald Trump, largely because of 70,000 votes in blue states where Obamacare is destroying the middle class. Americans simply do not care about the clown show, they want this disaster fixed. That’s the good news.

The bad news? We have a President that has consistently advocated for an expensive, big government approach to healthcare. Creating a bigger, more expensive solution will only make things worse. Donald Trump is not advocating for a watered down, moderate bill that will suck a little bit less than Obamacare. This tweet calls for a “Republican” solution that “adds more dollars” to our healthcare system. He is literally asking Republicans to devise a plan that is more liberal than Obamacare.

If Republicans want to be successful in 2018, they need to reject this liberal nonsense. The American people are tired of the big government approach to healthcare. Also, someone please take away the President’s twitter.