Media and Hillary Make Sure the Campaign is NOT About Real Issues

Media and Hillary Make Sure the Campaign is NOT About Real Issues

Donald Trump loses it after losing in Wisconsin

Donald Trump falls behind in the polls due to distractions from years ago

So this is what the presidential campaign of 2016 comes down to, an 11-year-old video of Donald Trump making some crude and crass comments about women, that he calls “locker room talk” and has apologized for it? Much like George Allen’s stupid “macaca” gaffe in the 2006 Virginia Senate race, the media and the Democrats will turn an entire campaign’s focus on one stupid moment by the GOP nominee because they are so deathly afraid of having a campaign based on issues. Democrats are unlikely to win when campaigns are decided by real issues, most of which they find themselves on the losing side. And if the locker room talk video is not enough, they probably have something else to release that Trump said at some other point to manufacture more outrage with.

David Horowitz has reminded us repeatedly in his writings, that politics is war by other means. Democrats seems to take this far more seriously than Republican activists, and they play much better hardball than Republicans do. Democrats, and their willing accomplices in the liberal media, always make much better use of any baggage or scandals the GOP carries than does the other side with Democrat baggage. Look at all the baggage that Hillary carries, from the 1990s Clinton scandals to email-gate to Benghazi and so much more in between, and yet for the last week the campaign’s focus is on an 11-year-old video of Trump engaging in so-called locker room talk. But the real question is, where are the voters and why are so many voters, according to the polls, allowing their assessment of the choice in this election to be swayed so heavily by this distraction?

And that is really what this is, a distraction. Nasty comments made by the candidate 11 years ago, that he has sincerely apologized for. But why should this possibly decide the election? Are voters that easily swayed, to elect Hillary as president, despite all the very legitimate questions about her fitness for the presidency, because Donald Trump made some stupid comments 11 years ago?

Campaigns are always going to be fought over negative issues, and baggage in the candidate’s backgrounds, and hardball political operatives on both sides will always be looking for dirt to discredit the other party’s nominee in the general election. But voters should decide the outcome of the election, right? And shouldn’t voters decide who wins by the real issues of the campaign, and not these distractions? So why it is then, that so many voters seem to be willing to decide this election based on that 11-year-old video?

This election is about real issues, after all, regardless of whether those issues decide the outcome of the election. If Hillary wins the election via the benefit of almost nothing but the destruction of Trump from his past baggage, she will have no mandate on any issues. Hillary will have been elected because voters didn’t think she was quite as odious as Donald Trump. But in the meantime, there are Supreme Court seats to be filled in the next president’s term, U.S. Attorneys and judges to be appointed, and the next attorney general. There are public policies on the economy, taxes, foreign policy, etc. as well. Hillary and her left-of-center views may not have majority approval from the American voters, but they will prevail if she wins the presidency. If voters decide Trump’s comments 11 years ago are so outrageous, Hillary’s views will largely determine the policy directions of the federal government for the next four-to-eight years under a Clinton presidency.

We as the voters should be far more concerned with who will appoint the replacement for Justice Scalia, and who will be the next attorney general, than what Trump said 11 years ago. There is so much at stake in this presidential election. There is far too much at stake to let it because decided by distractions. Are we the voters going to fall for this bill of goods the Clinton campaign and the media are trying to sell us? Or are we going to remember there are real issues involved and vote accordingly? Only the results on Election Day will answer that question. We have a choice. We can vote for the candidate, although imperfect, who is better suited to make those decisions and bring prosperity back to our economy. Or we can vote the candidate who is better at mud-slinging the opposition. The future of the country depends on us making the right choice.

Ethanol a Scam? You Decide

Ethanol a Scam? You Decide

Ethanol is heavily subsidized

Ethanol is heavily subsidized

Why do we pay so much for gasoline? Why is it mandated that we as consumers have ethanol in our gasoline? I have pondered the theory and compiled research, and to be honest, my findings were clear: There should be no minimum mandate, but cronyism keeps the Ethanol business alive. Established in 2007, the Renewable Fuel Standard requires a certain level of Bio fuels to be mixed in with transportation fluid in increasing amounts each year until 2022, when the total bio fuels nationwide will reach 36 billion gallons.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Congress created the renewable fuel standard (RFS) program in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and expand the nation’s renewable fuels sector while reducing reliance on imported oil. but according to Science Magazine the Renewable Fuel Standard causes green house emissions to increase by nearly double in 30 years, while increasing greenhouse gasses for 167 years! They claim that the emissions associated with plowing more lands for corn crop releases more greenhouse gasses into the environment. The EPA misses this point when projecting greenhouse gas reductions.

I checked with the Sierra Club, figuring if anyone would stand behind corn-based ethanol it would be them. But to my great surprise, they strongly oppose corn-based ethonal. Arguing they are unsustainable, they cite concerns in The National Research Council, and according to their report, there is great potential for environmental harm such as the pollution of rivers and other waterways as well as reduced water availability in some communities. They further argue its “time to move beyond corn.”

Another concern regarding ethanol is weather or not the corn industry can meet the demand for more and more corn-based bio fuels. Studies have shown a correlation between ethanol and crude prices due to the increasing demand on corn to fuel our vehicles. Estimates are that as crude oil prices rise, so will corn, with 40 percent of corn crop now being used for bio fuels. They argue “Within three years, demand for corn for ethanol may well exceed the traditional largest source of demand for corn –livestock feeding.  If the ethanol industry expands now and in the future, it may bid up corn prices – thus tending to narrow its processing margins unless ethanol prices simultaneously go up more than corn prices.”

The ethanol business is also heavily subsidized, despite some of the subsidies being discontinued. The Bio-energy Program for Advanced Bio fuels, which makes payments to advanced bio-fuel companies to expand the production of corn oil bio-diesels. These organizations received approximately $53 million dollars in grants and loans, according to taxpayer.net. They also have the Bio-refinery Assistance Program gives out grants and loan guarantees for advanced bio-fuels and they gave out $25 million dollars between 2009-2012. They also have the Empowering Assistance Program, and the Rural Energy for America Program, totaling $9.8 million dollars in reimbursements and grants.

Beyond these grants and subsidies, they also receive big tax breaks. Starting with the Volumetric Bio-diesel Excise Tax Credit, which is given to feed-stocks like corn, and they are projected to receive $16.2 billion between 2013-2022. The second tax credit they are eligible for is the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit, which allows for up to a 30 percent tax break, and this applies to businesses such as gas, those installing bio-fuels, or blending pumps that have E85. From 2013-2022, they are slated to cost taxpayers $220 million, according to taxpayer.net.

But the problem’s don’t end there – not by a long shot. What about the effects on your vehicle’s engine beyond just gas mileage? There is evidence it does do harm. USA Today is reporting that many warranties from automakers will be void if a customer should use E15 gasoline. AAA has also chimed in, claiming that E15 could be unsafe for vehicles and they advocate more investigation into the impact of E15 gasoline. “It is clear that millions of Americans are unfamiliar with E15, which means there is a strong possibility that many motorists may improperly fill up using this gasoline and damage their vehicle,” said AAA President & CEO Robert Darbelnet. “Bringing E15 to the market without adequate safeguards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers.” It doesn’t appear that many vehicles are prepared to fuel up with these bio-fuels, as the vast majority of vehicles do not have EPA approval for E15.

With the risks of environmental pollution, vehicle breakdowns, and higher food costs, some don’t see why we should continue to subsidize the corn industry. It appears the corn industry is in a battle by themselves, and the empirical evidence shows that they are losing. People deserve better.


Bill Ackman and Cronies Work to Take Herbalife Down

Bill Ackman and Cronies Work to Take Herbalife Down

bill ackmanBill Ackman, in a ruthless campaign to discredit and destroy Herbalife, a profitable supplement company, has enlisted the help of politicians as well as political advocacy organizations such as the Hispanic Foundation and LULAC. He and his hedge-fund company placed a $1 billion short sale on the company, which means such a bet would only pay off if Herbalife were to fail. He claims he is doing this to defend Hispanics and African Americans against the practices of Herbalife, who relies on both sales and a strong network of salesmen to market their product.

The devious effort started with his lobbying of Representative Linda Sanchez, who wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission explaining she was writing to “express her concern about the marketing and business practices of Herbalife” saying in the letter that she believes that Herbalife could be taking advantage of those most vulnerable, namely minorities. What’s wrong with that? Apart from the fact that she was extensively lobbied by Bill Ackman and she only expressed concern subsequently to his lobbying. It was also reported by the New York Times that he was given advance notice of the letter, which he showcased to his fellow hedge-fund managers at a gathering, showing an apparent conflict of interest.

Bill Ackman didn’t stop there. He hired Global Strategy Group, who coordinated with many activists across the country to drum-up opposition through a coordinated campaign between Pershing Square Management, Mr. Ackman’s hedge-fund company, and the activists. They have sent letters to representatives and regulatory officials that appear to be almost duplicate in nature. They each made reference to “a complex pyramid scheme,” but didn’t reference any specific instance or individual who had been scammed by the company.

Bill Ackman has used his political clout to organize protests against Herbalife, in addition to the letter-writing campaign. Herbalife has denied any wrongdoing and has claimed this is the work of a desperate Bill Ackman, who seeks to make a huge return on his investment.

What remains to be seen is if there will be any serious inquiries by Attorney General’s across the country. Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez-Mesto, in a response to the letter-writing campaign, says there will be no action taken against Herbalife at this time: “We are not going to move forward unless we have victims,” the New York Times reported.

So why is no one coming forward? They are undocumented, says Pershing Square Management. Their response? Have Global Strategies pay organizations to locate those who claim to be victims of Herbalife, compensating the Hispanic Foundation $130,000, according to the New York Times article. Paying victims for their claims is not new. Pershing Square Management has good company with the National Inquirer, who pays their sources.

Associates of Ackman earned scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the justice department for claims regarding Herbalife. The FBI is also investigating weather or not those hired by Ackman made false statements in order to manipulate the stock price of Herbalife. There have been no direct charges in the case against Ackman, but some of his associates in the Anti-Herbalife campaign are being inundated with document requests.

It is unclear where Bill Ackman will go from here. Despite all of his efforts, it appears he is failing. The company still stands strong, with a $4.5 billion dollar profit in 2015. With an FBI investigation, major questions remain about his credibility, his motivations and integrity, and his potential criminality.

A New Civil Rights Agenda For New Republicans

A New Civil Rights Agenda For New Republicans

A new Civil Rights agenda for new Republicans

A new Civil Rights agenda for new Republicans

Shortly after the Civil War, most newly freed blacks strongly supported the Republican Party that won their freedom for them, until just after the Great Depression when Franklin Roosevelt and the Democrats promised them they would benefit economically from the New Deal. Most African-American voters bought that bill of goods called the New Deal, and voted for Roosevelt in 1932 and realigned quite strongly to vote for liberal Democrats. In some elections over the last 80 years, more than 90 percent of the black community in the U.S. has voted for Democrats.

While some progress has been made with the enacting of Civil Rights laws designed to grant equal rights to African-Americans, what is the status of the rest of what they were promised by liberal Democrats? As a community, there are fewer intact families among blacks than there were during the Great Depression and poverty has increased since then. The inner city neighborhoods where many blacks live are much worse, experience much higher crime rates, they are far more poverty stricken and the government-run “public” schools in those distract are completely failing in all ways to provide any semblance of an adequate education for those who live in those communities. This is the legacy of decades of liberal Democrats rule. The Democrat Party has taken for granted getting 90 percent of the African-American vote in every election, and outside of passing Civil Rights laws, they’ve done absolutely nothing for them. Absolute nothing but poverty, welfare, drugs and crime and disastrously failed inner city schools.

In his book Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed, Jason L. Riley illustrates the cultural problem in the black community and how the problems are made worse in the form of the “help” from policies of liberal “progressive” Democrats that maintain the status quo mentioned above. As Ronald Reagan once said, “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” That is largely true with what Riley is pointing out as well, about how government “help” only makes problems worse.

We need to remember the direction former Buffalo, New York Congressman Jack Kemp once advised, and take it a step further. Kemp advocated improving the economies of depressed areas, including inner city neighborhoods by implementing tax-free enterprise zones to encourage the start up of and investment in businesses that would lead to urban renewal of those areas. This is a great start and should be part of a new Civil Rights agenda for new Republicans who want to truly reach out to the African-American community with real change that leads to real solutions to the real problems they face.

The New Civil Rights agenda needs to start with a statement of principles that clearly states that every child has a right to have a strong family, the availability of high quality education, an adequate standard of living and as equal an opportunity for success and achievement of the American Dream as adults as children from any other communities. While this statement may seem like a challenge, real changes in policies will need to be make to fulfill the promises of this principle.

First, a wide variety of public policies at the state and federal levels need to be re-examined and assessed on how they are either causing or contributing to the break up of the family or are otherwise conducive to supporting strong families. In all areas of tax policy, welfare policy and any other policies that have an effect, public policy needs to be changed to support strong families rather than encourage their break up. Statistics show that children who are raised in strong families are far less likely to live in poverty as adults.

True educational reform is an absolute must. As Riley illustrated, where high quality charter schools are operating, they educate students from the same pool of available students in the same communities, and even in places like inner city New York City, vastly out-perform the government-run public schools, sometimes sharing the same building with them. Currently, charter schools can only serve a small percentage of those students, who are selected by lottery for admission into those schools. Charter schools, and vouchers and school choice plans for parents, must be expanded and be accessible by all parents in the minority communities. Every parent should have the right to take their children out of failed schools and have them educated in high quality schools with high graduation rates and a large percentage of their students getting accepted into colleges and universities. The right of every child to get a quality education, and the right of parents to choose which school their children will attend, are absolutely key rights under this New Civil Rights agenda.

A real opportunity to either escape the ghetto or be able to enhance the standard of living in the ghetto is the other key right in this New Civil Rights agenda. Liberal Democrats have had many decades to liberate citizens from the ghettos and they’ve failed miserably. The New Civil Rights agenda promises real change for the inner city communities, but to make the real change reality, also asks voters in those communities to quit voting for Democrats and give Republicans, especially the New Republicans advocating these principles, a chance to prove they will make good on the promises.

For families who can secure employment outside of the ghetto, but are unable to make the jump due to moving expenses, they should be offer a one time grant to cover moving expenses to escape the ghetto. For those staying in those neighborhoods, there needs to be a variety of changes that would allow them to revitalize their communities, including enterprise zones to bring business back into the community and access to quality education so even children growing up in the ghetto can advance. It won’t happen overnight, but we can make progress if we make real changes. Right now, the status quo and voting for the liberal Democrat politicians and their empty promises only assures decades of more of the same for the foreseeable future.

The largest factor in the New Civil Rights agenda is education. I personally know people who grew up in extreme poverty and the ticket out of that was education. Allowing parents in these communities to take their children out of the failed inner city ghetto schools and put them in excellent schools is not only a right but a requirement of of a civil society that truly supports equal opportunity. By rejecting vouchers, school choice and access to quality charter schools for all parents in the inner city communities, liberal Democrats are far more effective at racial discrimination against the African-American community than anything being currently done now by the Klan. In fact it is racism for liberal Democrats to oppose school choices for parents and to continue to fail to live up to any of their promises to liberate the African-American community from the ghetto.

The answer to this liberal Democrats racism is for New Republicans to embrace the New Civil Rights Agenda, and to strongly push for this vision to become reality. If they can make it happen, the African-American community will reward Republicans with even higher percentages of their votes, and we will truly see transformation of the inner city areas and the quality of education there as well.

Liberal Democrats support racist minimum wage laws

Liberal Democrats support racist minimum wage laws

Liberal Democrats support racist minimum wage laws

Liberal Democrats support racist minimum wage laws

Minimum wage laws originate from a culture of racism and discrimination against African-American workers since they gained their freedom from slavery. The minimum wage laws were enacted to prevent African-American labor from undercutting white workers in the labor market. Samuel Gompers, who was leader of the American Federal of Labor, before it merged with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, said about whites refusing to be undercut by black workers, “The Caucasians … are not going to let their standard of living be destroyed by Negroes, Chinamen, Japs or any others.”

Congressman William Upshaw gave voice to that same racist sentiment, saying, “You will not think that a Southern man is more than human if he smiles over the fact of your reaction to that real problem that you are confronted with in any community with a superabundance or large aggregation of negro labor.”

Legislators and members of Congress representing mostly whites supported passing minimum wage laws to price African-American workers out of the job market and protect the jobs of white workers. Clearly the minimum wage laws were passed with racial intent to discriminate against minority workers.

It would be easy to say that today’s liberal Democrats have only good intentions to motivate their desire to pass minimum wage laws, and it is not their intention to discriminate against African-American workers in passing such laws. But the real issue is not the intentions, good or otherwise, of liberal Democrats, but the real effect of what they propose.

As noted by Raymond Richman and Howard Richman, writing for the American Thinker, it is clear that African-Americans and other minorities will be hurt the worst by raising the minimum to $10 per hour or higher. They gave some statistics to show the effect of raising the minimum wage.

Compare the unemployment rates of teenagers and the rest of those in the civilian labor force. The unemployment rate during the first quarter of 2014 was 6.5 percent for those 20 years of age and older but 20.9 percent for those aged 16 to 19. White teenagers had an unemployment rate of 20.9 percent, black teenagers 34.5 percent, Latin teenagers 24.4 percent and Asian 15.4 percent. Black male teenagers have the scandalous astronomical level of 42 percent, the Richmans wrote in the American Thinker.

Clearly minorities have the highest levels of unemployment and stand to lose the most if the minimum wage is increased, and they stand to lose the most by nothing having any many opportunities to get their first jobs.

They also quote from the book Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman, about the effects of raising the minimum wage, who wrote, “After minimum wage rates were raised sharply, the unemployment rate shot up for both white and black teenagers. Even more significantly, an unemployment gap opened between the rates for white and black teenagers…. We regard the minimum wage rate as one of the most, if not the most, antiblack laws on the statute books. The government first provides schools in which many young people, disproportionately black, are educated so poorly that they do not have the skills that would enable them to get good wages. It then penalizes them a second time by preventing them from offering to work for low wages as a means of inducing employers to give them on-the-job training. All in the name of helping the poor. (pp. 227-228)”

It is clear that raising the minimum wage will close more job opportunities and cause even more unemployment about minorities, and teenagers, and especially African-American teenagers, who already are experiencing the highest levels of unemployment. Clearly, regardless of the intention, the effects of minimum wage increases are indeed racist. If liberal Democrats really were racist and intended their policies to discriminate against minorities, they could do no better than to raise the minimum wage to put more minorities out of work.

The Richmans had a novel idea to solve teenage unemployment: lowering the minimum wage instead. They wrote, “Lowering the minimum hourly wage to $5 would provide an annual wage of more than $10,000. It is not unreasonable to expect up to 50% of the unemployed teenagers would find employment. Since some 5,785,000 teenagers were unemployed during the 1st quarter of 2014, 2,891,000 would find employment and their annual earnings would amount to $28.9 billion dollars. If so, the national minimum wage of over $7.25 per hour has cost teen-agers nearly $29 billion.”

If a Republican member of Congress suggested this, you can assured that several liberal Democrats would cause a rock-concert like stampede and trample over everyone in their way while making a beeline to the nearest microphone and television camera to brand that Republican member of Congress a racist for daring to suggest a decrease in the minimum wage. Yet it is truly the liberal Democrats who want to raise the minimum wage that are actually endorsing a policy that is destructive to the economic interests of minorities and teenagers.

American Sniper Chris Kyle was murdered by a Muslim convert?

American Sniper Chris Kyle was murdered by a Muslim convert?

American Sniper Chris Kyle was murdered by a Muslim convert?

American Sniper Chris Kyle was murdered by a Muslim convert?

Iraq War veteran, and U.S. Navy Seal Chris Kyle, the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history, was murdered by a Muslim terrorist sympathizer who might also be a Muslim convert, says former Palestinian terrorist turned peacemaker, Walid Shoebat. Shoebat, who converted from Islam to Chistianity, appeared as a guest on the WRKO radio program, the Kuhner Rreport, hosted by Jeff Kuhner.

Appearing on the Kuhner Report, Walid Shoebat gave the details about how Eddie Routh, the alleged killer of Chris Kyle, whose autobiography American Sniper is the basis of the record breaking movie of the same title, was an Iraq War veteran who along the way became a Muslim terrorist sympathizer and possibly a Muslim convert. Shoebat explained how Routh was assigned to guarding Muslim terrorist prisoners at Balad Air Base in Iraq, during his single tour of duty there, and during that time came to oppose the war in Iraq and sympathize with Muslim terrorists.

Shoebat stated that Routh because a Muslim terrorst sympathizer and had the characteristic of a Muslim fanatic. “He was hanging around with Muslim fanatics the whole time,” Shoebat said of Routh’s time at Balad Air Base in Iraq.

It’s not unusual for servicemen to go there and get brainwashed by Islamic extremists,” Shoebat said, in explaining how Routh become a Muslim terrorist sympathizer and possibly a convert to Islam.

He had sympathy with the (Muslim) terrorists,” Shoebat said, explaining how in one instance Routh tried to convert a nurse to Islam while in Iraq, he held a warden hostage until police were called. Routh had become a Muslim fundamentalist while a prison guard at Balad Air Base in Iraq.

This man has targeted Kyle for a reason…Kyle is wanted by Islamic jihadis,” which is the reason Shoebat says Eddie Routh killed Chris Kyle. The most deadly sniper in U.S. military history, with 160 confirmed kills, who served four tours of duty in Iraq, Shoebat believes that should be an investigation of a possible connection between Kyle’s murder and Islamic terrorists.

Shoebat stated that the instance of Routh is much like that Bowe Bergdahl, who converted to Islam and became a Muslim terrorists sympathizer while captured in Afghanistan. Shoebat said, while in phone conversations with his father, he expressed opposition to the law, lamented the conditions of the prisoners in the prison he guarded, and that he sympathized with the prisoners he guarded.

On February 2, 2013, Kyle was at a Texas gun range with Routh and a friend, Chad Littlefield, during which Routh allegedly turned the gun on Kyle and killed him. Routh was said to have had PTSD at the time, as an explanation of his actions. While Routh was claimed to have had PTSD, he saw no combat action or had no traumatic event during his single tour of duty in Iraq, Jeff Kuhner stated in his comments before introducing Walid Shoebat as a guest on the Kuhner Report.

Shoebat is widely regarded as an expert on Islamic extremist terrorists, and has appeared on BBC, Fox News and CNN discussing issues related to Muslim terrorists. The full interview of Walid Shoebat by Jeff Kuhner can be heard here.