↓ Archives ↓

Archive → November, 2016

The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts

The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts

The recount in Wisconsin, and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of the states.  No recount ever changes thousands of votes.  I do not think that is the purpose.

The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters.  If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232.  No one hits 270.

Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time this happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it?  The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote  (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.

The recount in Wisconsin, and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of the states.  No recount ever changes thousands of votes.  I do not think that is the purpose.

The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters.  If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232.  No one hits 270.

Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time this happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it?  The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote  (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/the_democrats_real_strategy_in_launching_recounts.html#ixzz4REYdfVkD

Source: Will County News

Illinois’ wealth flight explained in 4 graphics

Illinois Policy November 15th 2016

IRS data show the average income of taxpayers leaving Illinois surpassed the average income of taxpayers entering the state by $20,000 in 2014, a record loss for Illinois in the wake of the 2011 income-tax hike.

Politicians enacted Illinois’ 2011 income-tax hike during a late-night legislative session in January 2011 and raised the state’s personal income-tax rate to 5 percent from 3 percent. This 67 percent income-tax hike lasted for four years, during which time Illinois experienced record wealth flight.

IRS data reveal what happens when politicians choose short-term tax revenue gains over long-term stability. The short-term increase in tax revenue gained from higher tax rates is offset by the long-term loss of substantial portions of Illinois’ tax base.

The average income of taxpayers leaving Illinois rose to $77,000 per year in 2014, according to new income migration data released by the IRS. Meanwhile, the average income of people entering Illinois was only $57,000. 2014’s $20,000 difference in average income between people who left Illinois and people who entered the state is the highest on record. And this divergence between out-migrating and in-migrating income began widening significantly in the wake of the 2011 tax hikes.

illinois outmigration

The IRS income migration data span back to 1995, and show how the migration of earning power out of Illinois has changed over time. From 1995 to 2010, the difference between the earning power of Illinoisans who moved out and people who moved in was $5,350. This spread dipped to $3,000 in tax year 1996, then climbed to $7,000 in tax year 2000.

But that income differential increased dramatically after the 2011 tax hikes. In tax year 2010, the last year before the tax hike, the differential was $5,900. The difference jumped to $9,700 in 2011; $14,300 in 2012; $13,700 in 2013; and $20,100 in 2014.

illinois outmigration wealth flight

During the four years of the full income-tax hike, prior to its partial sunset in 2015, Illinois lost $14 billion in annual adjusted gross income, or AGI, to other states, on net. The out-migration of income cost Illinois $2.7 billion in 2011, $3.9 billion in 2012, $4.2 billion in 2013, and $3.4 billion in 2014. That compares with an average annual loss of $2.2 billion of AGI per year over the 16 years prior to the tax hike.

illinois outmigration wealth flight

Illinois has America’s worst differential between the average income of people who leave the state and the average income of people who enter the state. Behind Illinois’ $20,000 income differential were Connecticut with a $16,000 income differential; Kansas at $12,000; and Ohio and Washington, D.C., each with an $11,600 income differential.

illinois outmigration

By contrast, the top five states with favorable income differentials were Florida, Wyoming, Nevada, South Carolina and Texas. Notably, 4 of 5 of these states have no income tax, and none of them have a death tax.

Illinois faces limitations in addressing its ongoing fiscal crisis in light of the fact that higher-income Illinoisans are opting out of Illinois residency. Further tax hikes will push these people out even faster. Rather, Illinois politicians have to rein in their spending habits.

And Illinois needs to remove the most obvious tax driver of high-income out-migration: the state’s death tax. If political leaders push through another income-tax hike as a temporary Band-Aid for the state’s fiscal crisis, they should also repeal the death tax as part of the process. The possibility of a repeal of the federal death tax and the increasing mobility of wealth and income across state borders will put even more pressure on states that still impose this tax.

Illinois policymakers need to confront the loss of wealth that followed the 2011 tax hike, which is likely still ongoing. Politicians must reckon with the fact that they have overspent and overpromised, and seek solutions that focus on reduced spending and more economic growth.

TAGS: IRS: Internal Revenue Service, outmigration

Source: Will County News

Colin Kaepernick Contract Changed… Time to Look for a New Job!

Colin Kaepernick Contract Changed… Time to Look for a New Job!

Conservative Tribune

Things haven’t gone well for San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick since his ill-advised national anthem protests that sparked nationwide backlash.

In October, the controversial athlete reportedly signed a revised deal with the NFL team that effectively deleted the last three years of his contract — 2018 through 2020 — which could make him a free agent in March, according to USA Today.

In other words, Kaepernick is likely out of a job at the end of this season, and millions of America-loving, patriotic football fans across the country are not sad about it.

Not only has the NFL quarterback ostracized himself by insulting the American flag and the military men and women who have sacrificed on behalf of our country, but his capabilities on the field have also been insulting to fans of the 49ers who have undoubtedly been disappointed in their team’s 9-game losing streak.

Kaepernick’s lackluster performance on the field can be attributed to him missing most of the off-season due to shoulder, thumb and knee injuries, as well as the fact that he also skipped a large part of the team’s training camp because of a “tired throwing arm,” USA Today reported.

“(P)hysically (he) is not where he was pre-injury,” 49ers head coach Chip Kelly explained.

Although another team could sign Kaepernick to their roster, the team would have to assume some level of risk because of the negative publicity surrounding his national anthem protest, Forbes argued.

Many football fans, including fans who had previously supported the 49ers quarterback, strongly disagreedwith the way in which he chose to protest what he perceived as the mistreatment of minorities in the country.

Kaepernick recently stirred up controversy again when he revealed that, after months of being vocal about his disagreement with American government and policies, he did not vote in the 2016 election.

And in fact, despite trying to portray himself as a civil rights leader or idealist, the controversial athlete has never voted or even registered to vote in any election, according to The Sacramento Bee.

If Kaepernick doesn’t make it back onto the field in future seasons, I feel confident that few people will be sad about it.

Like and share this article on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about Colin Kaepernick potentially being out of a job at the end of the season.

What NFL team would be willing to sign Kaepernick despite the obvious liabilities?

Source: Will County News

Global Warming: Policy Hoax versus Dodgy Science

Global Warming: Policy Hoax versus Dodgy Science
Global Warming: Policy Hoax versus Dodgy Science

Written by Dr. Roy Spencer

In the early 1990s I was visiting the White House Science Advisor, Sir Prof. Dr.Robert Watson, who was pontificating on how we had successfully regulated Freon to solve the ozone depletion problem, and now the next goal was to regulate carbon dioxide, which at that time was believed to be the sole cause of global warming.

I was a little amazed at this cart-before-the-horse approach. It really seemed to me that the policy goal was being set in stone, and now the newly-formed United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had the rather shady task of generating the science that would support the policy.

Now, 25 years later, public concern over global warming (aka climate change) is at an all-time low remains at the bottom of the list of environmental concerns.

Why is that?

Maybe because people don’t see its effects in their daily lives.

1) By all objective measures, severe weather hasn’t gotten worse.

2) Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be.

3) CO2 is necessary for life on Earth. It has taken humanity 100 years of fossil fuel use to increase the atmospheric CO2 content from 3 parts to 4 parts per 10,000. (Please don’t compare our CO2 problem to Venus, which has 230,000 times as much CO2 as our atmosphere).

4) The extra CO2 is now being credited with causing global greening.

5) Despite handwringing over the agricultural impacts of climate change, current yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat are at record highs.

As an example of the disconnect between reality and the climate models which are being relied upon to guide energy policy, here are the yearly growing season average temperatures in the U.S 12-state corn belt (official NOAA data), compared to the average of the climate model projections used by the IPCC.

Yes, there has been some recent warming. But so what? What is its cause? Is it unusual compared to previous centuries? Is it necessarily a bad thing?

And, most important from a policy perspective, what can we do about it anyway?

The Policy Hoax of Global Warming

Rush Limbaugh and I have had a good-natured mini-disagreement over his characterization of global warming as a “hoax”. President-elect Trump has also used the “hoax” term.

I would like to offer my perspective on the ways in which global warming is indeed a “hoax”, but also a legitimate subject of scientific study.

While it might sound cynical, global warming has been used politically in order for governments to gain control over the private sector. Bob Watson’s view was just one indication of this. As a former government employee, I can attest to the continuing angst civil servants have over remaining relevant to the taxpayers who pay their salaries, so there is a continuing desire to increase the role of government in our daily lives.

In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given a legitimate mandate to clean up our air and water. I remember the pollution crises we were experiencing in the 1960s. But as those problems were solved, the EPA found itself in the precarious position of possibly outliving its usefulness.

So, the EPA embarked on a mission of ever-increasing levels of regulation. Any manmade substance that had any evidence of being harmful in large concentrations was a target for regulation. I was at a Carolina Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA) meeting years ago where an EPA employee stated to the group that “we must never stop making the environment cleaner” (or something to that effect).

There were gasps from the audience.

You see, there is a legitimate role of the EPA to regulate clearly dangerous or harmful levels of manmade pollutants.

But it is not physically possible to make our environment 100% clean.

As we try to make the environment ever cleaner, the cost goes up dramatically. You can make your house 90% cleaner relatively easily, but making it 99% cleaner will take much more effort.

As any economist will tell you, money you spend on one thing is not available for other things, like health care. So, the risk of over-regulating pollution is that you end up killing more people than you save, because if there is one thing we know kills millions of people every year, it is poverty.

Global warming has become a reason for government to institute policies, whether they be a carbon tax or whatever, using a regulatory mechanism which the public would never agree to if they knew (1) how much it will cost them in reduced prosperity, and (2) how little effect it will have on the climate system.

So, the policy prescription does indeed become a hoax, because the public is being misled into believing that their actions are going to somehow make the climate “better”.

Even using the IPCC’s (and thus the EPA’s) numbers, there is nothing we can do energy policy-wise that will have any measurable effect on global temperatures.

In this regard, politicians using global warming as a policy tool to solve a perceived problem is indeed a hoax. The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources.

Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.

The Dodgy Science of Global Warming

The director of NASA/GISS, Gavin Schmidt, has just laid down the gauntlet with President-elect Trump to not mess with their global warming research.

Folks, it’s time to get out the popcorn.

Gavin is playing the same card that the former GISS director, James Hansen, played years ago when the Bush administration tried to “rein in” Hansen from talking unimpeded to the press and Congress.

At the time, I was the Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA/MSFC, and NASA had strict regulations regarding talking to the press and Congress. I abided by those regulations; Hansen did not. When I grew tired of them restricting my “freedoms” I exercised my freedom — to resign from NASA, and go to work at a university.

Hansen instead decided to play the ‘persecuted scientist’ card. After all, he (and his supporters in the environmental community) were out to Save The Earth™, and Gavin is now going down that path as well.

I can somewhat sympathize with Gavin that “climate change” is indeed a legitimate area of study. But he needs to realize that the EPA-like zeal that the funding agencies (NASA, NOAA, DOE, NSF) have used to characterize ALL climate change as human-caused AND as dangerous would eventually cause a backlash among those who pay the bills.

We The People aren’t that stupid.

So now climate research is finding itself at a crossroads. Scientists need to stop mischaracterizing global warming as settled science.

I like to say that global warming research isn’t rocket science — it is actually much more difficult. At best it is dodgy science, because there are so many uncertainties that you can get just about any answer you want out of climate models just by using those uncertianties as a tuning knob.

The only part that is relatively settled is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has probably contributed to recent warming. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is dangerous.

And it surely does not mean we can do anything about it… even if we wanted to.

Article originally published at Cornwallalliance.org.


Source: Will County News

Order out of chaos: The defeat of the Left comes with a cost

Why would anyone want a president?As I noted in my last article World suffers from Trump shellshock — here’s what happens next, there are two primary consequences of a Trump presidency that actually serve globalists and elites in the long run.

The first is the consequence of a perfect scapegoat for the economic crisis which the elites have been gestating since 2008.  Trump enters the White House with a clear political mandate, a mandate that supposedly gives conservatives more power than at any other time in U.S. history.  This mandate might seem like a miracle, a free hand of power to sovereignty and liberty champions to defeat the collectivist  tyranny of cultural Marxists on the Left once and for all.  However, it could also backfire because under this mandate everything bad that happens under Trump’s watch can be blamed on Trump and his followers.  Conservatives have been given almost absolute influence over government; by extension, they also inherit absolute responsibility, whether they like it or not.

I examined this first consequence in detail in numerous articles leading up to the 2016 election.  In fact, it is the primary reason why I was so certain Trump would be president.  He is the perfect scapegoat, or the perfect conduit.  Under Trump, the last stage of economic collapse can finally be initiated by the financial elites and most of the world including half the population of the U.S. will immediately and without question blame conservatism, nationalism, sovereignty advocates and Trump for the disaster.  They won’t think twice about looking in the direction of global bankers.

For those that immediately scoff at such a notion, I highly recommend they research the concept of 4th Generation Warfare.  I also highly recommend study into a Department of Defense paper called From Psyop To Mindwar: The Psychology Of Victory, written by Major Michael Aquino (a self proclaimed “satanist”) and Colonel Paul Vallely (today a self proclaimed liberty champion).  I would also compel people to read The Art Of War by Sun Tzu, the same manuscript that all recruits of the CIA are required to read.

The essence of the most advanced form of warfare is the ability to defeat an opponent, or a population, without having to fight at all.  Instead, the master tactician seeks to influence his opponent to surrender without fighting, or, to influence his opponent to destroy himself.  This is accomplished primarily through propaganda, subversion, asymmetric warfare (terrorism and insurgency) and most importantly, co-option.

As I noted in my last article, if you want to be able to accurately predict future events, you must understand the minds of the people with the most influence over those events.  The financial elites, highly motivated and highly organized, are the single most important gatekeepers to geopolitical change today.  Know their mind, and you will know the general path tomorrow will take.

This is not to say that the elites are “omnipotent.”  Frankly, they don’t need to be.  With the utter lack of vigilance and awareness within our society, the elites only need to be relatively intelligent and exceedingly morally bankrupt to manipulate the masses. When skeptics argue with me that the elites would “have to be omnipotent to influence the social narrative in the manner I describe,” I have to laugh.  Any person of above-average intelligence and unlimited capital (as the financial elites have) can do considerable damage to a society, bring empires to their knees and condition the populace to think and react in a specific fashion.

If I had the same resources at my disposal as the elites have (and the same lack of conscience), I could probably do a far better job than they when manipulating geopolitical outcomes. They make numerous mistakes if you pay close attention to their actions.  I hardly consider myself the smartest person around, let alone “omnipotent.”  This is a silly notion.  The reality is, the more ignorant the population, the easier it is to control and misdirect them.  To the ignorant, the elites might seem “omnipotent.” They aren’t; they merely have more-intelligent-than-average people at their disposal and printing presses to pay for everything they want.

The smarter and more vigilant any given population, the more difficult it is to influence them through deception.  This is very simple.  To put it even more bluntly, the elites get away with subversive tyranny because there are too many willfully stupid people.

Following this line of thinking, there is a second consequence of Election 2016 that greatly concerns me — the potential for co-option of the Liberty Movement, the only existing opposing force to globalism.  Co-option requires the centralization of a group in thought and deed under the influence of a small number of hands, or a single white knight figure.  As I noted in my article Will a Trump presidency really change anything for the better?, published in March of this year:

The other ingenious aspect of the Trump campaign is really who he is running against — Hillary Clinton, a rabidly liberal candidate even more hated than Barack Obama. A candidate with a potentially serious criminal record and a penchant for an outright communistic world view far beyond that of Bernie Sanders. Those of us who have been in the writing field for a long time and have dabbled in fiction know that in order to create a fantastic hero, you must first put even more work into creating a fantastic villain. The hero is nothing without the villain.

The unmitigated horror inherent in the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency is like adding jet fuel to the Trump campaign. (And yes, I am assuming according to the results of the primaries so far that the final election will be between Trump and Clinton).

And, as I explained in my article Clinton versus Trump and the co-option of the liberty movement published in September:

Whenever you have a rebellion focused on the inherent ideals of freedom, totalitarian institutions struggle to intervene. The issue is, freedom is not only moral, but practical. Wherever true freedom exists, people are not only happier, but more productive and prosperous. It’s hard for a tyrant to fight a rebellion based on freedom because the idea is more powerful than any weapon or any form of treachery. No matter how advanced the tyranny is, and no matter how many rebels they imprison or kill, the idea of freedom endures.

The only way to destroy a rebellion like this, a rebellion like the liberty movement, is to make it about something other than freedom. The powers that be have to convince that movement to support policies that are destructive to their own ideals. If this can be done, then that rebellion has lost the advantage of principle — the only advantage that really matters.

The co-option of the liberty movement is not necessarily direct.  It can be achieved through what I call “absorption.” Take note that the mainstream media and elitists avoid using the label “liberty movement” at all costs because this is something we labeled ourselves many years ago.  Instead, they seek to control what we are called; labeling us “populists” of the “Alt-Right.”  The liberty movement has been fighting the globalists in the information war for a long time.  The average conservative Republican is new to this party, and yet the liberty movement is being called the “Alt-Right?”

Even Bloomberg pointed out with relative glee that the Tea Party (liberty movement), a movement which leftists despise with every fiber of their being, could be devoured by Trump’s campaign and reconstituted into something else.  Read their editorial The Tea Party Meets Its Maker, but only if you have a strong stomach.

In the battle against the Marxist left, it is important that we do not lose track of our original identity.  Also important is that we do not forsake our original principles in order to achieve “victory” over our adversaries.  This is a very difficult problem to discuss when you consider who we are fighting against.

I have always said that it was the social justice cult and their zealotry that drove the rise of Trump.  It was they that created the public firestorm with their open contempt for our right to free thought and free expression.  But keep in mind, this has all happened before, and with terrible results.

In Europe during the 1920s and early 1930s, the overall rise of Fascism was in direct response to economic crisis and the insurgency of communism.  Communism is essentially collectivism on the far left side of the political spectrum. Fascism is collectivism on the far right side of the political spectrum.  Both lead to centralization and tyranny.

Communism is tyranny in the name of destroying the strong in order to make room for the weak.  Fascism is tyranny in the name of destroying the weak to make room for the strong.

It is these two political extremes that the elites have used over the past century to dominate geopolitical outcomes.  Again, for those who are skeptical I highly recommend the extensive research and evidence presented by Antony Sutton, who outlined succinctly the fact that both the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of the Third Reich were funded and managed by Wall Street moguls and international banking interests.

The elites are notorious for playing the extreme left against the right in order to drive conservatives to the opposite extreme.  My concern is not only that through Trump the elites can easily scapegoat conservative movements for a global economic crisis, but also that through the intense vitriol of the social justice left, infuriated by their loss to Trump in the election, conservatives may be driven to abandon their constitutional ideals and become the monster they hoped to destroy.

Carroll Quigley, CRF elitist and mentor to Bill Clinton, was highly open about the plans of globalists to establish one world governance in his book “Tragedy And Hope.”  The following quote from Carroll Quigley’s Dissent: Do We Need It? could be taken as anti-right propaganda, but I take it as a warning that the elites see potential exploitation of the political right in America:

“For example, I’ve talked about the lower middle class as the backbone of fascism in the future. I think this may happen. The party members of the Nazi Party in Germany were consistently lower middle class. I think that the right-wing movements in this country are pretty generally in this group.”

Again, the liberty movement cannot be defeated by the globalists directly.  If the fight comes down to an open confrontation between freedom versus globalism, the globalists will inevitably lose.  Instead, it appears to me that the globalists are more than happy to either allow Trump into the White House, or to install him in the White House as a means to rewrite the liberty movement into a villainous character, rather than the rebellious hero of our story.

So far it would seem that the temptations to revert to fascism are many.  Set aside the threat of ISIS terrorism and think about the insanity showcased by the Left.

When I mentioned in my last article the crippling of social justice, I did not mention that this could have some negative reverberations.  With Trump and conservatives taking near-total power after the Left had assumed they would never lose again, their reaction has been to transform.  They are stepping away from the normal activities and mindset of cultural Marxism and evolving into full blown communists.  Instead of admitting that their ideology is a failure in every respect, they are doubling down.

When this evolution is complete, the Left will resort to direct violent action, and they will do so with a clear conscience because, in their minds, they are fighting fascism.  Ironically, it will be this behavior by leftists that may actually push conservatives towards a fascist model.  Conservatives might decide to fight crazy with more crazy.

The mainstream media and popular media largely controlled by leftist elements are only pouring gasoline on the fire, with major pundits and media personalities steadily hinting at “revolution” in the face of a “Trumpist” America.  But here is the thing, these people are kidding themselves.

The alternative media is eclipsing corporate media today.  Their time is coming to an end.

Leftists including groups like Black Lives Matter are also ill equipped to violently combat a conservative movement with a lifetime of experience in arms and the will to use them.  If the Left leaps into the realm of violent Marxist revolution, they will lose in America.  That said, there is a cost.

The cost could very well be the heritage of freedom that conservatives desire to protect.  The alternative media may overrun the corporate media, but will we become the corporate media in the process?

If under Trump conservatives fall to temptation and exploit the “ring of power” that is government to exert dominance in the name of stopping the Left, then they will ultimately be destroyed as well.

In this case history will not remember conservatives as freedom fighters rebelling against globalist machinations, but as evil “populists” that caused global economic collapse and the re-establishment of the institution of fascism.  The globalists can swoop in after the dust has settled and use the American collapse fable as a story to tell children for the next century.  A reminder that nationalism and sovereignty are harbingers of war and death.  Conservatism will be abhorred as “deplorable,” an ugly ideal akin to Nazism.

At this point, the globalists will have won, for no other philosophy contrary to globalism will ever exist again.  No one would want to associate themselves with historical “villains.”

As I have mentioned consistently, I have no idea whether or not Donald Trump is aware of this potential trap.  I also have no idea if he was sincere in his campaign or simply telling people what they wanted to hear.  At this time, his consideration of neo-con political elites and Goldman Sachs bankers for cabinet positions does not leave a positive impression.

My position is that the Liberty Movement must always remain the Liberty Movement if conservatives and sovereignty proponents want a chance to survive.  We have to be willing remain just as watchful and critical of Trump as we would have been with Hillary Clinton.  And, if he breaks his promises or goes against his oath to the constitution, we must be willing to go to war with him, just as we would have with Clinton.

This puts us in a tenuous position — fighting the Left is bad enough.  Going against Trump if he steps out of line is worse, because then we can be labeled leftists as well.  This is the essence of 4th Generation warfare — cornering an opponent so that each move he makes is a sacrifice.  If the opponent is not careful, he might just destroy himself.

There is a way to undermine this strategy by the elites; as conservatives we must treat Trump like a new employee.  We have to put him on probation and watch him, not give him the keys to the store on the first day.  We must also continue to educate fellow conservatives (and any on the Left that have the sense to listen) that this fight is far from over.  In fact, it has just begun.  People must understand that the real threat in all of this has been and always will be the globalists.  Instead of fighting each other in a futile theater of the absurd, we must fight and remove them from the chess board, wherever and whenever they show their faces in the daylight.


Source: Will County News

Lawmakers decry welfare system that punishes families

Lawmakers decry welfare system that punishes families


Welfare headerCongressional conservatives are hopeful that the coming Republican presidential administration will create an opportunity for lawmakers to tackle anti-family aspects of the U.S. welfare system.

Speaking at a Heritage Foundation anti-poverty event in Washington D.C., lawmakers said the current welfare system undermines key components of a successful society: strong families and opportunities for individuals to provide for their families.

“Think about what we now have–don’t get married, don’t get a job, have more kids, and we’ll give you more money,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “That’s pretty ridiculous, right? It’s anti-family–the key institution in our culture.”

Beyond welfare benefits, the lawmakers noted that the nation’s tax system is also currently stacked against low income families.

“I always tell folks: The first institution the good Lord put together wasn’t the church, wasn’t the state, it was moms and dads and kids,” Jordan said. “It was family. We have an anti-family welfare system, and we have an anti-work welfare [system]. The two values that helped make America the greatest country ever. Strong families, strong commitment to the work ethic. That’s what we have to incentivize.”

Part of encouraging welfare reform with a focus on the family, according to the lawmakers, will mean walking back Obama administration policies that have isolated Americans of faith.

“We have got to resolve where we are as a nation, where we are on religious liberty,” Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told the crowd.

The conservative legislators say they plan to advance a welfare reform bill introduced by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Jordon in May 2016. The legislation, called the Welfare Reform and Upward Mobility Act, would build upon welfare reforms passed in 1996, including strengthening work requirements for welfare recipients.

A fact sheet about the bill explains the importance, and the need for more, of those requirements: “Work requirements establish reciprocity between the taxpayer and the individual receiving assistance. Furthermore, a work requirement serves as a gatekeeper: Assistance is available to those who need it, but individuals who can work are moved towards work. However, only four of the federal government’s means-tested welfare programs include work requirements.”

The welfare reform package would also initiate new accounting requirements to help Americans better understand the total cost of the nation’s social safety net. In addition, it would shift more of the burden for housing assistance onto states.

President-elect Donald Trump is likely to work with lawmakers on the package considering his praise for the 1996 reforms in his 2011 book, Time to Get Tough.

He wrote: “To get your check, you had to prove that you were enrolled in job-training or trying to find work. But here’s the rub: the 1996 Welfare Reform Act only dealt with one program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), not the other seventy-six welfare programs which, today, cost taxpayers more than $900 billion annually. We need to take a page from the 1996 reform and do the same for other welfare programs. Benefits should have strings attached to them. After all, if it’s our money recipients are getting, we the people should have a say in how it’s spent. The way forward is to do what we did with AFDC and attach welfare benefits to work.”


Source: Will County News

Interesting Facts About Gun Control

Guns and drugs; drugs and guns. There is a connection folks!
Interesting Facts About Gun Control:

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed.   The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. 
Do the math:  0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year.   Statistically speaking, this is insignificant!

What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

•    65%  of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws

•    15%  are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
•    17%  are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
•    3%  are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100 –  Still too many?  Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
•    480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

•    344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
•    333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
•    119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C.  (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities.   All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation – or about 75 deaths per state.  That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others.
For example, California had 1,169 – and Alabama had 1.

Now, which state has the strictest gun laws by far? Ans: California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this.  It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states.   So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific?   How about in comparison to other deaths?  All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime.  Robbery, death, rape, assault – all are done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous.  That’s why they are criminals.

But, what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose – THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors.
You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease.   It’s time to stop the double      cheeseburgers!
So what is the point?   If Obama and Hillary – the anti-gun movement – focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).   A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides … Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?   It’s pretty simple.  Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies.  It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution.  It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster:  “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.  The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.  A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.”
Remember, when it comes to “gun control”, the important word is “control”, not “gun”.
Surprisingly, these are not the statistics you hear about from the media or from the Washington.

Source: Will County News

Like the Britts U. S. Citizens say no to global society

Editors Note: Globalism is good if you want a socialist world of sharing wealth. Capitalism promotes competition and promotes the concept of hard work giving rewards. Socialism distributes the rewards of hard work to others who don’t want to work hard. Like a professor who takes an average of all grades on a test and gives everyone the same average grade. Soon students don’t want to study because they see little or no value in their efforts.

In Socialism the exception is the ruling class or government that now gets the best while everyone else suffers. During the cold War in the 50’s and 60’s The leaders of the USSR had everything they needed while the average person went without.

President Obama Discusses Globalist Earthquake and Plans for Future Political Tectonic Shifts…

President Obama held a press conference today with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and fielded questions about the 2016 presidential election.  Within the optics and the presented narrative it is possible to find evidence of the globalist’s perspective on the loss, and more importantly their intents moving forward.  Very Rivkin-esque.

Within the EU Merkel is the defacto representative of the continent’s globalist vision; as such when President Obama and Merkel appear together you will always find the epicenter of globalist advocacy – the direct opposition of nationalism.


For the optics note Obama’s grey hair exhibition.  One of the indicators of his preferred approach is how he chooses to present his personal image to the EU audience. When done by design, Obama always draws attention to it – today is no different.

There are many responses within the overall Merkel/Obama event which should be keenly understood by all Americans.  However, this response within this specific video (soundbite below) is a good summation:

Notice how President Obama responds by pointing toward “social media”.

The globalist movement, through Obama himself, exploited social media to carry out their prior globalist ideological endeavors.  This was not only evidenced within Obama’s ’08 election, but also with the rise of his “Arab Spring”; which was kicked off post-Cairo speech, when FaceBook was enlisted to advance the Brotherhood cause.

It is remarkable to see President Obama now pointing a finger toward social media as a risk toward the globalist endeavors.   This will be missed by most, but explains why you are seeing a filtering shift amid those who control the architecture of the various social media platforms. The specific phrase: …“but, we’ll figure it out”… should ring your alarm bells.

Also within this admission is where you find the first specific evidence of why they need to eliminate Steve Bannon, who has effectively outwitted the globalist team on their own social media platforms.

Notice how President Obama also emphasizes what makes him most optimistic moving forward is: …”the attitudes of young people etc“…  Which is specifically directing attention to the globalist plans within all educational systems to promote globalist world-views and advance multiculturalism.   This is the key underpinning behind the U.S. State Department’s “Rivkin Project” to eliminate nationalism.

merkel zuckerberg

Some other breakouts.

President Obama asked about the protests to U.S. election, and the “crude rise of nationalism”:

President Obama Asked about Russia (takes him to 03:25 to get to it):

This is where you recognize the fundamental earthquake that has taken shape with the 2016 election of Donald Trump.  The political tectonic plates have shifted:


Source: Will County News

Government both admits and denies health benefits of medical marijuana

marijuana121814Government doublespeak on the health benefits of marijuana knows no bounds.

The National Cancer Institute, an agency of the federal government, now lists on its website recent studies showing marijuana kills cancer cells. Meanwhile, the Drug Enforcement Agency continues to oppose any and all efforts to remove cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, claiming it has “no currently accepted medical use.”

According to NCI, preclinical studies of cannabinoids have shown:

  • Cannabinoids can kill cancer cells in animals while protecting normal cells.
  • Cannabinoids protects against colon inflammation and may potentially reduce the risk of colon cancer in mice.
  • In a laboratory study of delta-9-THC in hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) cells showed that cannabinoids damaged or killed the cancer cells. The same study of delta-9-THC in mouse models of liver cancer showed that it had antitumor effects. Delta-9-THC has been shown to cause these effects by acting on molecules that may also be found in non-small cell lung cancer cells and breast cancer cells.
  • In a laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in estrogen receptor positive and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells, CBD was shown to have caused cancer cell death while having little effect on normal breast cells. Studies in mouse models of metastatic breast cancer showed that cannabinoids may lessen the growth, number, and spread of tumors.
  • A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in human glioma cells showed that when given along with chemotherapy, CBD may make chemotherapy more effective and increase cancer cell death without harming normal cells. Studies in mouse models of cancer showed that CBD together with delta-9-THC may make chemotherapy such as temozolomide more effective.
  • In animal studies, delta-9-THC and other cannabinoids have been shown to stimulate appetite and can increase food intake. Reduced appetite is a common problem experienced by chemotherapy patients.
  • Cannabinoids may prevent nerve problems (pain, numbness, tingling, swelling, and muscle weakness) caused by some types of chemotherapy, according to animal studies.
  • Cannabinoid receptors found in brain cells may have a role in controlling nausea and vomiting. Animal studies have shown that delta-9-THC and other cannabinoids may act on cannabinoid receptors to prevent vomiting caused by certain types of chemotherapy.

I told you last January how the federal government argued and continues to argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug with no medicinal value even while it patents marijuana extracts for health-related uses and as it was posed to grant a license to GW Pharmaceuticals for treating patients with multiple sclerosis with a cannabinoid-based drug called Epidiolex.

Cannabis marijuana medications have also been used with complete safety for the treatment of many health problems, including asthma, glaucoma, nausea, tumors, epilepsy, infection, stress, migraines, anorexia, depression, rheumatism and arthritis.

The NCI website claims, “No clinical trials of Cannabis as a treatment for cancer in humans have been found in the CAM on PubMed database maintained by the National Institutes of Health.” Yet, PubMed, aka the National Institutes of Health, aka another government agency, lists a number of studies that have been conducted. Also, the Schedule I listing severely limits or prohibits the ability of most research organizations to hold clinical trails.

The truth is, marijuana and its uses have been studied far more than most drugs the FDA approves for use on the general public – drugs that cure nothing but merely cover symptoms and generate billions of dollars for Big Pharma.

The federal government – and most local governments — is far more interested in using marijuana as a revenue stream in its fake “War on Drugs” than in allowing medical marijuana in its many forms to improve the lives of people with health problems.

All the “War on Drugs” has accomplished is to create suffering and death, a large prison population, a host of people with criminal records for victimless crimes, a more militarized police regime and great loss of liberty.


Source: Will County News

How do we rediscover freedom and truth?

Senior man wearing spectacles reading book in living room, close-upBack in May, I warned my Bob Livingston Alerts readers about the real purpose of any election, and my warnings are coming to fruition.

Agents of the shadow government — the deep state — are using every vile meme they can think of to describe Donald Trump, and are fomenting protest and argument so that we keep fighting each other, and they can keep their power and wealth.

Understanding these agents and their aims is vital to your survival, not just as an American but as an independent human being. That’s why I want to make sure you see the warning I sent, which applies even more so these few months later:

The state always considers that a self-sufficient and independent thinker is a threat to collectivism and its deception of the masses.

The welfare state must absolutely keep the people from the individualistic tendency of thinking for themselves. Government parasites extract their wealth, power and pomp from mass deception based upon altruistic sacrifices of the workers and producers of wealth.

Their greatest fear is that this will be revealed. To keep it quiet, the government uses memetics.

You have heard the word “meme”? Injecting this word into the public consciousness so that any meme is remembered as simply a “silly internet joke” is part of your programming.

In reality a meme is an information pattern, held in an individual’s memory, which is capable of being copied to another individual’s memory. So memetics is neurolinguistic programming. You could also call it what I’ve called it for years — propaganda by code words.

You are programmed to respond in a particular way to certain words and phrases created by the elites.

It is important you recognize these words (and learn to recognize the truth) because once you become aware of the phrases and how they work, you will be able to shrug off the chains of modern slavery and there will be hope for you.

The overarching code word: Democracy

Most of you are already informed enough to know that the American nation was founded as a republic, not a democracy.

A republic is a limited, representative, participatory government. A republic is the almost natural result of public order built upon the individual, the family, the church, and business and many, many private associations and relations.

Democracy is not necessarily a representative government, but it is an illusory participatory government. People tend to think that democracy is evolved or modern republicanism.

Democracy is truly a veil for a wicked government that places all matters, including personal and private ones, into the public view, for public legislation.

In a democracy, the vote becomes the single, all-important symbol of citizen participation in government. Witness the movement to turn to another code word: the “popular vote.”

The brilliant Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville described in his “Democracy in America” the danger facing all Americans should they become deceived into believing that their mere, sole vote constituted all the duties of a good citizen.

He warned that when this development came about, we should become slaves to the real, elitist and plutocratic powers operating behind the veil of democracy. The problem was obvious more than 150 years ago, when de Tocqueville wrote his book.

Democracy flourishes where the hard-working, creative middle class perishes, or is not allowed to develop.

Now you know why the middle class is “disappearing.” It is in reality being destroyed in order to render the individual vote today meaningless.

So few people vote today that the illusion is breaking down. Some folks say I am a pessimist, but here you see that I am really an optimist. The middle class is opting out of the illusory democratic system.

But as a result, they are being herded into supporting a different collectivist system, the paper money system, which is less and less reliant on the dollar and more and more reliant on the stock market.

Think back… did the average middle class individual have a brokerage account 30 or 40 years ago?

But you can’t be entrusted to invest on your own, else the wealth-stealers will lose the ability to continue their thievery. So today, when you do invest, the financial media espouses a set of code words designed to keep you in the dark.

Financial code words are especially used to make you think you are free and have a choice. But they are part of selling you on “democracy.” Yet it is merely the mask of tyranny that pretends to promote public debate but always on spurious issues. He who speaks about the real issues is blacked out.

The people, through public schools and mass media indoctrination, eventually adopt government morality and habits. Every stage of growth of government carries at the same time a corresponding dependency of the people.

The growing dependency of the people upon government is a gradual, imperceptible and silent revolution.

I cringe when I hear the mention of “constitutional rights.” There is no such thing in the United States! As one example, we wouldn’t be forced to sign annual confessions on IRS tax form 1040 each year if there were any such thing as “constitutional rights.”

My friends, we are not under constitutional law. We are under merchant law. The U.S. Constitution is now merely historical memorabilia of human freedom that now passed away in favor of the money creators.

This means all so-called justice is under the jurisdiction of the “king’s court,” same as in colonial days. You didn’t know that? We are aliens in our own country and our continued beliefs in legal fictions and historical myths is demeaning to our mental capacity and militates far more to slavery than human liberty.

Prescription for individual freedom

Most people never break free of popular delusions because they will not read. 99.9 percent of people will not read, so you are already far above the average!

It’s as if they have some kind of phobia of reading. They wouldn’t buy a book or walk across the street if offered free. The frivolity of life is what consumes them. Yet if you do not read you will never break free and become truly wealthy and free.

You may become like those “educated” people whose thinking has been sealed within the parameters of education. They wouldn’t dare read anything not in harmony with what they already believe.

These are high IQ people. They think what they don’t know isn’t worth knowing.

You could become one of those people whose mind is crowded out. They have an information overload. They can’t see the woods for the trees. These people do read but they have trouble evaluating what to read. So they tend to look past high value and creative ideas that could give them great satisfaction as well as the good life.

All of the above are locked into the “public mind” — collectivism.
Reading and learning has liberated more people than all the wars in history.

I read five to eight books a month on health and finance and many, many publications. I don’t watch TV or go to the movies much, and I only look at the mainstream media to discover what is the propaganda of the day.

I research deeply through publications and information available on the Web. I spend thousands of dollars each year for publications that contain millions of dollars’ worth of information. I feel a conviction to decipher it and bring to you in these Bob Livingston Alerts [Editor’s Note: You can sign up to receive them FREE right here].

I want to help you stay three steps ahead of the propagandists and those trying to confiscate your wealth and take your freedom.

People who won’t read are no better off than those who can’t read. I can’t imagine such a collectivist fate.

Source: Will County News