Google+ Followers

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Daily Digest for Wednesday

August 27, 2014   Print

THE FOUNDATION

"Experience teaches, that men are often so much governed by what they are accustomed to see and practice, that the simplest and most obvious improvements ... are adopted with hesitation, reluctance, and slow gradations. The spontaneous transition to new pursuits, in a community long habituated to different ones, may be expected to be attended with proportionably greater difficulty." --Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, 1791

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS

Burger King's Move a Sign of Deteriorating Business Climate

The announcement of the merger between Burger King and Tim Hortons (let's say the companies are creating a donut burger) shows America is no longer the bright beacon on the hill for business enterprise. Formerly American companies are now resorting to the greener pastures through tax inversion. The Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore writes, "Expect a blizzard more of these tax moves if the U.S. corporate tax isn't reduced quickly to at most the average in the industrialized world of 25 percent. Better yet would be to abolish the corporate tax altogether and tax the shareholders on these profits. This would cause a flood of companies to come to the U.S. rather than leave." Even Warren Buffet, the Left's poster boy for "paying your fair share," thinks the donut-burger merger is a good way to avoid taxes, seeing as he is investing in the deal. More...

GOP Hires Law Firm, Sets Budget for Lawsuit

Republicans in Congress are taking the next steps in their plan to sue Barack Obama for abuse of power. ABC News reports, "The House of Representatives has hired Baker & Hostetler, one of America's largest law firms, to the tune of $500 an hour, but a total not to exceed $350,000, to represent the lower chamber in its lawsuit against President Obama." Democrats are blasting Republicans for wasting taxpayer money. "House Republicans continue to waste time and taxpayer dollars," complained House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. "Americans are tired of election-year stunts." And if anyone knows about election-year stunts and wasting taxpayer dollars, it's Democrats. While the lawsuit may not be the best course for the GOP to take, it at least serves to highlight Obama's lawlessness, which we think is rather important to consider come election time.

Oh, by the Way, Lerner's Blackberry Was Willfully Destroyed

This week Judicial Watch uncovered evidence suggesting the government always had former IRS official Lois Lerner's emails. That revelation is contrary to the agency's previous assertions, but the saga of damning evidence doesn't stop there. The investigation also found that Lerner's Blackerry was willfully destroyed shortly after Congress began looking into the scandal. According to Fox News: "Thomas Kane, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for the IRS, wrote in the declaration, part of a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch against the IRS, that the Blackberry was 'removed or wiped clean of any sensitive or proprietary information and removed as scrap for disposal in June 2012.' That date -- June 2012 -- is significant because by that time, ex-IRS official Lerner had already been summoned before congressional staffers who interviewed her about reports of the IRS' targeting of conservative groups." No wonder Lerner pleaded the Fifth. Almost surreally, the question remains: What exactly is it going to take before charges are filed? More...

A Gun Rights Win in California

A judge in California ruled the state's 10-day waiting period for gun purchases is unconstitutional if buyers passed a background check, either when they applied for a handgun permit or when they bought their first firearm. The Calguns Foundation, one of the plaintiffs in the case, released a statement that said, "Federal Eastern District of California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, found that 'the 10-day waiting periods ... violate the Second Amendment' as applied to members of certain classifications ... and 'burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.'" This is the second time a court has chipped away at California's gun laws, which shows that some of the most severe gun laws in the nation are also some of the most unconstitutional. More...

Obama Violating Constitution With International Treaty

The Obama administration is trying to create a "politically binding" international treaty regulating climate change without the consent of the Senate. This move subverts Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which says the president is allowed to make international treaties that are legally binding only if two-thirds of the Senate ratifies it. The New York Times reports: "'There's some legal and political magic to this,' said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. 'They're trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold' in the Senate." A lot has changed in a few years. The "constitutional law professor" in the Oval Office, who "actually respect[s] the Constitution," is ramming through a treaty that would not only do damage to that document, but would also hurt the poor of the world. More...
For more, visit Right Hooks.
2014-08-27-6dc6c00e_large.jpg

RIGHT ANALYSIS

Syria's Assad Aided the Rise of ISIL

2014-08-27-02e8f50a.jpg
Assad vs. ISIL
On Aug. 20, 2012, Barack Obama declared his stance on Bashar al-Assad and Syria: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” It was a foolish threat he was forced later to walk back when evidence surfaced that Assad likely did use chemical weapons against his own people and Obama didn't actually want to do anything about it.
"I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line," Obama insisted on Sept. 4, 2013.
We argued at the time that taking out Assad's regime would not serve vital U.S. interests, because it would leave a power vacuum in the country and we might not like what came next. For an example of why such caution is needed, see the disaster in Libya, created in part by Obama's careless actions to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power. Jihadis now control Tripoli.
Unfortunately, Assad may have played that fear to his advantage, aiding the rise of ISIL. His support of al-Qaida in Iraq against U.S. forces was known in 2007, but The Wall Street Journal also reports it happened within his own borders: "Earlier in the three-year-old Syrian uprising, Mr. Assad decided to mostly avoid fighting the Islamic State to enable it to cannibalize the more secular rebel group supported by the West, the Free Syrian Army, said Izzat Shahbandar, an Assad ally and former Iraqi lawmaker who was Baghdad's liaison to Damascus. The goal, he said, was to force the world to choose between the regime and extremists." Frankly, pitting his enemies against each other was a smart strategy.
Now, however, ISIL has all but wiped out the Free Syrian Army and any other "moderate" rebel forces, and it has proven to be a serious threat to the Assad regime. McClatchy reports, "Islamic extremists captured a major government military airport in Raqqa, eastern Syria, on Sunday, completing their takeover of the entire province and dealing a humiliating blow to President Bashar Assad."
ISIL also controls vast territory in Iraq, and in June its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared a caliphate and shortened the group's name to just the Islamic State. Its army of perhaps 20,000 fighters certainly poses a threat to the United States. Western fighters, including perhaps 300 Americans, have taken up arms with ISIL. NBC reports, “Douglas McAuthur McCain, of San Diego, California, was killed over the weekend fighting for [ISIL].” British Muslims are joining by the hundreds, as well. Jihadis with Western passports pose a significant problem if they return undetected.
In what could be a major policy shift, the Obama administration may be allying with Assad to fight ISIL. According to Agence France Presse, "The U.S. has begun reconnaissance flights over Syria and is sharing intelligence about jihadist deployments with Damascus through Iraqi and Russian channels."
Naturally, the White House denies the report. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest insisted the U.S. has "not recognized" Assad and has "no plans to coordinate with the Assad regime." It would be odd indeed to partner with the dictator after the Obama regime sought to aid "moderate" Syrian rebels against him.
The administration's incoherence on policy regarding ISIL is dangerous. Last week, various parts of the administration made contradictory public statements on how serious the threat was or what to do about it.
Drawing another red line of sorts, Obama promises not to send ground troops back to the Middle East. "American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq," he said. "I will not allow the United States to be dragged back into another ground war in Iraq."
In fact, he argued, doing so only causes problems: "The answer is not to send in large scale military deployments that over-stretch our military, and lead [to] us occupying countries for a long period of time and end up feeding extremism.” So he won't tell us what the answer is, only what the answer isn't.
Though carrying no stick (a nine-iron doesn't count), he spoke loudly about doing "whatever is necessary" to capture or kill James Foley's murderers, while employing a broader strategy against ISIL. "Rooting out a cancer like ISIL won't be easy, and it won't be quick," Obama said. And, he declared, "Our message to anyone who harms our people is simple: America does not forget. Our reach is long. We are patient. Justice will be done."
That remains to be seen under a commander in chief who would rather attack Republicans or a golf ball than enemies of the United States.

Don't Arrest Kids; Educate Them

2014-08-27-d3482be9.jpg
Once upon a time school children enjoyed a wide degree of freedom. Rules were simple, well defined and generally well-honored by students. Kids were encouraged to express themselves creatively and even provocatively in their assignments. But in this day and age, there is zero tolerance for this sort of individual expression. Conformity is more important than ever.
Playtime once found swing sets, seesaws, jungle gyms and slides swarming with little people. Older kids engaged in rough and tumble games, making cuts and scrapes common, but serious injuries were extremely rare. Children burned energy and calories, and obesity was virtually unknown. Today's educationists are trying to build a utopia not realizing what they’ve lost.
For example, they want to eradicate bullying and name-calling, but it’s an impossible dream because people aren't robots. Fortunately, real bullies are rare. They can scar people physically and emotionally. But it’s essential that kids learn how to deal with bullies because such people can still intimidate when they grow up. Name-calling offends many people on the Left, but as the First Amendment says, “Sticks and stones...” Public schools do have the right to regulate speech to a point, but only to prevent danger.
The effects of Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society" turned America upside down, including changing the character of public schools. In 1960, 95% of children had a mom and dad at home. By 2010, that had dropped to 59%. Almost all single-family homes are now headed by mothers, 33% of whom have no high-school diploma and live in poverty, often in dangerous neighborhoods.
While the programs multiplied and the billions of dollars flowed, the problems of the inner city spread to other schools and communities. Some problems plaguing inner city and minority schools made the jump to the suburbs. Unfortunately, violence is endemic in urban America, but the drugs, students’ radicalized attitudes and general disrespect now fill the halls of many schools.
Pressured by frightened parents, school boards adopted what's known as a “zero tolerance” policy. In short, the policy's definition is the strict and uncompromising enforcement of rules, even for minor infractions and regardless of extenuating circumstances. It allows for no judgment or grace. For an institution of learning, such a policy is absurd.
Schools now have zero tolerance all across the fruited plain: zero guns, zero religion, zero bullying, zero disrespect, zero tardiness, zero pictures of offending things. How kids can remain positive in a “zero-atmosphere” amazes us.
We’ve recounted several of the many, many outrageous stories of its implementation in recent months. Many are just plain idiotic as they harm the kids involved without really solving anything. A suspension on a transcript, for example, can kill the chance of winning a scholarship.
As an assignment, a 16-year-old wrote a fictional story about shooting a dinosaur for which he was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, ostensibly for his reaction to questioning. But who wouldn't be outraged at such nonsense? That arrest remains on his record despite the sheer idiocy of the underlying “offense.”
A senior honor student with nothing negative on his record innocently drove his father’s truck to school. A security check turned up a dangerous weapon in the lad’s truck -- a fishing knife. The young man was suspended the maximum 10 days. Worse, his record is now tarnished with an arrest on a weapons charge.
In another case, a child with Asperger’s disease -- a genuine illness, not a disorder d’jour -- was suffering a panic attack. The mother soon arrived, was buzzed in to the school and proceeded to her son’s room where she comforted him. But wait! She had violated school policy by failing to sign in. Police were called, the school locked-down and the mother handcuffed. Imagine the effect on the boy, already pathologically uncomfortable in social situations. Anyone think he’s eager to get back to school? How cruel.
This brings us to a crucial point. While schools have lost their collective mind, they have become the biggest bullies in the nation (IRS excluded). Yet these people see themselves as the arbiters of all that’s good and evil. They behave like a bunch of chicken little, Victorian spinsters -- arresting mothers, locking down schools and confiscating dangerous gun-shaped Pop Tarts from small children.
How did these people get into these positions of power? The policy-makers were elected by a small segment of voters -- those who cast ballots in school board elections. Unfortunately, getting more people to vote in these elections is a Sisyphean task. Few people know either the current board or the current candidates, so, they’ll say, what’s the point? That’s a good question. But until someone makes a drastic change, you can count on more zeros and less education.
For more, visit Right Analysis.

TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

British statesman John Viscount Morley (1838-1923): "The means prepare the end, and the end is what the means have made of it."
Columnist Walter E. Williams: "Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. ... According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. ... To put this violence in perspective, black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and all wars since 1980 (about 8,200) come to about 18,500, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home. Young black males had a greater chance of reaching maturity on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Newark and other cities. ... If it is assumed that problems that have a devastating impact on black well-being are a result of racial discrimination and a 'legacy of slavery' when they are not, resources spent pursuing a civil rights strategy will yield disappointing results."
Columnist John Stossel: "Today, instead of environmental regulations that actually save lives, we pay to subsidize politicians' cronies and pet projects, such as electric cars. Voters rarely object to such deals, says David Harsanyi of The Federalist, because government hides their real costs. 'If people actually paid what a Chevy Volt cost to make, it would probably be around $200,000. Without government -- essentially, government cronyism and all kinds of subsidies -- the Volt wouldn’t exist.' He says Chevy, even with its government subsidies, loses about $49,000 on every Volt it builds. It’s ironic that, as environmentalists talk about 'sustainability,' they create totally unsustainable subsidy schemes."

Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Islam is not the religion of peace if you are not a muslim

Steve Russo
Heads Up! Even Though Mullah Obama Says: Islam Is A Peaceful Religion That Doesn't Condone Beheadings.... A Muslim cleric Clarifies and Justifies The Islamic State (ISIS) Beheadings and True Teachings Of Islam: “Islam is a Religion of Beheading and a Religion Of Bloodshed."
Hmmmmm, who do you believe?
Before we start, read these headline from tonight and understand fully what you are about to read...
ISIS Issues Final Ultimatum To Iraq’s Christians: You Have One Week To Convert To Islam Or Die…
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/isis.gives.iraq.christians.one.week.convert.die/39953.htm

Boko Haram: 'Submit to Allah... Worse Things to Come'...
http://thenewsnigeria.com.ng/2014/08/25/worse-things-to-come-shekau-warns-in-new-video/

Al Shabab Muslim Terrorists Behead a Christian Man in Kenya
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/asia/suspected-shebab-islamists-militants-behead-kenyan-driver/

Caliphate: 'Sharia Can Only Be Imposed with Weapons'...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/23/A-look-into-heart-of-jihadist-caliphate-in-Syria--Iraq

ISIS Slams Moderate Muslims as 'Western Hippies'...
http://www.inquisitr.com/1426809/isis-beheading-videos-banned-isil-leader-says-islam-is-not-the-religion-of-the-western-hippie/

Yes, the same Muslim imam who described how to kill the infidels, by telling his disciples to enjoy themselves while cutting the throats of their enemies, has now weighed in on this very old and well accepted tradition of beheading infidels, just as the (so called) prophet Muhammad did (may he rot in hell).
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/muslim-cleric-explains-how-to-kill-infidels-you-take-the-sword-you-place-the-head-like-this-and-then-you-enjoy-yourself-with-it/

Now, that same jihadi cleric Hussein bin Mahmoud set the record straight... "Islam is a religion of beheading." It's not that we needed this cleric to tell us this, but once again, I don't see Muslims out in the streets in mass saying this is not so. In fact, the silence of their opposition to any of what Islamists are doing throughout the world is deafening. Their silence is complicity. But like many of us, This cleric is tired of seeing idiots like Barack Obama and his administration continue to perpetrate a falsehood about Islam by saying it's peaceful and ignore it's violent and evil founding, past and current path of destruction. Know the true history before you believe the lies that come from those who defend it. http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm
The great site MEMRI reports that Mahmoud, (who is a prominent writer on jihadi forums), expressed his support for the beheading of journalist James Foley, claiming that it was very effective in terrorizing the enemies of Islam and that Islam allows and encourages beheadings and other atrocities.
MEMRI then provided the following excerpts from the Shumoukh Al-Islam forum that were posted by Mahmoud on August 21, 2014: (Here are the talking points, you can read what he said about each one of the topics in full from here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/muslim-cleric-justifies-islamic-state-beheadings-islam-is-a-religion-of-beheading

But here is the basics.....
1. "Islam Is A Religion Of Bloodshed"....
"The truth is that what distorts the image of Islam is not the beheading and terrorizing of infidels, but rather those who want [Islam to follow the path of] Mandela or Ghandi, with no killing, fighting, brutality, bloodshed or the striking of heads or necks. That is not the religion of [the Prophet] Muhammad son of 'Abdallah who was sent [to fight] with the sword [until] Judgment Day. The only Koranic surah that is named after him, Surah Muhammad, is [also] called 'The Surah of Fighting'…

2. "All Scholars… Agree On The Permissibility Of Killing A Harbi Infidel" (belligerent infidel)....
"Many Muslims are influenced by the West's false views and its repulsive ideas, which are exported to the Islamic nation in order to weaken it and change the perception of its youth so that [the youth] become cowardly and subdued and abandon the means of power and terror, and thus create a generation that does not know fighting or the cutting of necks. Recently we saw some who are considered scholars mixing things up and deceiving the nation, changing the concepts of Islamic law to fit the plans of the enemies. We don't know if they did this out of ignorance about some of the tenets of Islamic law, or were [simply] lying…"

3. "Beheading A Harbi Infidel Is A Blessed Act For Which A Muslim Is Rewarded"...
"Chopping off the heads of infidels is an act whose permissibility the [Muslim] ummah agrees on. Beheading a harbi infidel is a blessed act for which a Muslim is rewarded. The [only] matter scholars disagree about is the question of transferring the head from one place to another, traveling with it and carrying it around…"

4. "Jews, Christians, Shi'ites And 'Alawites Who Committed Crimes Against The Muslims Must Be Beheaded".....
"How many hadiths [relayed by] the Prophet's Companions have we read in which they demanded that he strike the necks of certain men, and the Prophet did not condemn the striking of necks… Striking necks was a well-known matter that did not elicit any condemnation in the eras of the Prophet, the rightly-guided caliphs and their successors, right until the time of the Christian occupation of the Muslims' lands in the [20th] century. Those crusaders fought the Islamic legal concepts, distorted the religion, and convinced the Muslims that their religion is a religion of peace, doves, love and harmony, and that there is no blood in it, no killing and no fighting. The Muslims remained in this state until Allah revived the tradition of beheading by means of the mujahid and slaughterer Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, may Allah have mercy upon him and accept him as a martyr."

Mahmoud is not presenting the world with a "radical" view of Islam, but he properly and correctly view of the demonic ideology as promoted by Muhammad, that he not only did himself, but commanded that his followers do. Only fools like Obama and the useful tools of the left continue to promte this farce that Islam is the "Religion of Peace." Terrorism is not reactive. As ISIS has shown us, it has a vision for the future. The Caliphate, like the Reich, is a utopia which can only be created through the mass murder and repression of all those who do not belong. This isn’t a new vision. It’s the founding vision of Islam that Muhammad created and envisioned and preached.

Tags: ISLAM,peace,christianity,jews,murderers,beheadings,,isis,truth To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!
Dr. Ben Carson
The international spotlight has recently been shining on Ferguson, Mo., after an 18-year-old black man was fatally shot by a white police officer. There was massive national and international media coverage, much of it engendered by the tantalizing thought that here was a clear-cut case of racism leading to police brutality and indicative of the evil inherent in American society. Violent demonstrations and riots ensued, with massive property damage and many outside agitators descending on the town, supposedly to guarantee justice as defined by mob mentality.
Perhaps it would be useful to examine the tragedy with the facts on the table rather than through the lenses of hypersensitized emotions stimulated by those attempting to exploit the situation.
Michael Brown was 6-foot-4 and 290 pounds. He had marijuana in his system and was purportedly involved in a strong-arm robbery prior to the shooting. He and a companion were walking in the middle of the street and obstructing traffic and therefore were admonished by a police officer to move to the sidewalk. Brown, who may have been pharmacologically impaired, became belligerent, and the ensuing struggle produced facial trauma and an orbital fracture of the police officer's face. The officer, who may have been dazed by a blow to the cranium severe enough to produce a fracture, attempted to apprehend the assailant, and shots were fired, six of which struck the suspect, resulting in a fatality.
Regardless of one's position on the political spectrum, we can all agree that this was a horrible tragedy and needless discarding of a precious life. How could this have been avoided? Two obvious answers: The officer could have ignored his duty and backed off when it became apparent that his instructions would not be followed, thereby avoiding a confrontation, or Brown could have complied with the officer's instructions, according to his civic duties.
If police officers generally adopted the first solution, chaos would reign supreme in all of our streets. If the populace generally adopted the second solution, there would be even fewer incidents of police violence. Last year, 100 black males were killed by police in the United States. In the same year, 5,000 blacks were killed by other blacks, the vast majority being males. Could it be that we are erroneously being manipulated into making this incident a racial issue, when, in fact, it is a component of a much larger social issue?
Why are there so many young black men in the streets of America with defiant attitudes that frequently lead to incarceration or death? Could it be that a large number of them grow up without a father figure to teach them how to relate to authority and the meaning of personal responsibility? This is not to say that mothers cannot convey these important social lessons, as mine did. But in too many cases, these young unwed mothers have never themselves been exposed to personal responsibility and self-esteem, and the vicious cycle continues. As a society, we must concentrate on ways to break this tragic cycle that has produced a higher poverty rate in black communities across America with the increasing frustrations that underscore potentially explosive, tinderbox situations, as we have seen in Ferguson.
Once we get the most powerful economic engine the world has ever seen back on track with sensible economic policies, we should devote some of the tax revenues generated to child-care facilities that would allow many of those unwed mothers to get their General Education Development or higher degree and become self-supporting. There are also a number of programs across the nation that offer free classes that teach social and job skills, which would give many of the young men some different options.
We must concentrate on these kinds of programs because we cannot afford to lose large segments of our society to despair and underachievement in an increasingly competitive world. We have a social crisis brewing if we continue down the path we are on now, but we have the power to change our downward course with true compassion that allows people to rise and escape dependency.
Here is a man of true intelligence and integrity who actually knows what is needed for black america to rise but the race-baiters who get the spotlight are either blind or indifferent as they owe THEIR living to agitation. 

Tags: minorites,blacks,self-imposed poverty,governmental largess,immorality,easy living To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Blacks Must Confront Reality

Here is a good and accurate article but I'll not be holding my breath for Black America to see the LIGHT. It is simply TOO easy for young black men to be savages living off their women and the governmental largess. Why work if you don't have to?

Walter E. Williams
Though racial discrimination exists, it is nowhere near the barrier it once was. The relevant question is: How much of what we see today can be explained by racial discrimination? This is an important question because if we conclude that racial discrimination is the major cause of black problems when it isn't, then effective solutions will be elusive forever. To begin to get a handle on the answer, let's pull up a few historical facts about black Americans.
In 1950, female-headed households were 18 percent of the black population. Today it's close to 70 percent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children lived with the biological mother and father. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households. Herbert Gutman, author of "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925," reports, "Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents." Also, both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.
A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia found that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families (composed of two parents and children). What is significant, given today's arguments that slavery and discrimination decimated the black family structure, is the fact that years ago, there were only slight differences in family structure among racial groups.
Coupled with the dramatic breakdown in the black family structure has been an astonishing growth in the rate of illegitimacy. The black illegitimacy rate in 1940 was about 14 percent; black illegitimacy today is over 70 percent, and in some cities, it is over 80 percent.
The point of bringing up these historical facts is to ask this question, with a bit of sarcasm: Is the reason the black family was far healthier in the late 1800s and 1900s that back then there was far less racial discrimination and there were greater opportunities? Or did what experts call the "legacy of slavery" wait several generations to victimize today's blacks?
The Census Bureau pegs the poverty rate among blacks at 28.1 percent. A statistic that one never hears about is that the poverty rate among intact married black families has been in the single digits for more than two decades, currently at 8.4 percent. Weak family structures not only spell poverty and dependency but also contribute to the social pathology seen in many black communities -- for example, violence and predatory sex. Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation's population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it's 22 times that of whites. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Coupled with being most of the nation's homicide victims, blacks are also major victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault, rape and robbery.
To put this violence in perspective, black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and all wars since 1980 (about 8,200) come to about 18,500, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home. Young black males had a greater chance of reaching maturity on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Newark and other cities.
The black academic achievement gap is a disaster. Often, black 12th-graders can read, write and deal with scientific and math problems at only the level of white sixth-graders. This doesn't bode well for success in college or passing civil service exams.
If it is assumed that problems that have a devastating impact on black well-being are a result of racial discrimination and a "legacy of slavery" when they are not, resources spent pursuing a civil rights strategy will yield disappointing results.

Tags: reality,blacks,segregation,minority rights,self-imposed pverty To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

What is the Difference Between the DNC and the CPUSA?

Monday, August 25, 2014


This blogger has been saying this for years. To be a democrat requires a certain amount of stupidity or a belief in socialism, which may well be redundant. A second requirement is that they must either be completely gullible or too stupid to comprehend the danger the demass party constitutes since it advocates our destruction. The dems actually denigrated GOD during their last convention so is it possible for a CHRISTIAN to be a democrat without also being a condemned liar? I THINK NOT !

by Alan Caruba, Contributing Author: On the home page of the Communist Party USA it says “A better and peaceful world is possible—a world where people and nature come before profits. That’s socialism. That’s our vision. We are the Communist Party USA.”

No, it’s not Socialism which is a watered down version of Communism. Real Communism is the kind that was practiced in the former Soviet Union. It can be found in Cuba and North Korea where the state controls all power and property,and the people have none.

Modified versions exist in China, Russia, Venezuela, and other nations where some aspects of Capitalism are maintained for the sake of their economies. In the West Socialism was incorporated by both the U.S. and Great Britain, and other nations via various social welfare programs.

Capitalism is about profits, innovation, entrepreneurship, and investment. It is about the freedom to acquire wealth. It emphasizes work, not welfare. It is the reason America has a dynamic economic system---when it is permitted to prosper, free from federal interference.

In America, conservatives have always been acutely aware of Communism, but the 47% who still approve of Barack Obama and those who are members of the Democratic Party are the dupes of those whose quest for tyrannical power permits them to tell the most appalling lies, particularly about Republicans.

The Democratic Party is so politically corrupt and devoid of moral standards that it is currently engaged in seeking to harm potential Republican presidential candidates with an utterly bogus indictment of Texas Governor Perry and the slanders leveled against New Jersey Governor Christie. It is a tactic of those who fear a loss at the ballot box.

It is the Democratic Party and its elected officials that have advanced the global warming hoax, now called climate change and the CPUSA website refers to the “Accumulation of greenhouse gases (as) a ‘planetary emergency’” This is what both the President and the Secretary of State are saying, but there has been no warming on a planet that is now 17 years into a cooling cycle.

As for those "greenhouse" gases, nitrogen and oxygen are the most abundant in the atmosphere, followed by nothing more dangerous than water vapor! Carbon dioxide is a very minor gas at 0.04%. And most importantly, the Earth is not a greenhouse. When the Sun's radiation is reduced due to its own natural cycles, it gets colder.

Tied to the climate change message is an agenda that includes Obama’s “war on coal” and his refusal to permit the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from our neighbor Canada, among other measures to restrict access and use of America’s vast energy reserves. This is an attack on the nation’s economy in the name of “nature” or the “environment.”

The CPUSA wants “No new sanctions on Iran” and the administration’s negotiations with Iran to slow or end its nuclear weapons program have dropped some sanctions to get them to the table, but no one believes that Iran will stop because they are openly avowed enemies of America and Israel.

If you wanted to harm America, you would undermine its southern border so that thousands of illegal aliens could join the estimated eleven million already here. That is what President Obama has done and he is joined by former Democratic Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi who said of the illegals, “We are all Americans.” No, they are not.

The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, continues to push for amnesty for illegal aliens saying “It isn’t about politics at all. They (illegal aliens) essentially have become the backbone of the economy.” The Center for Immigration Studies has documented the many jobs that have gone to illegal aliens, leaving native-born and naturalized U.S. citizens with fewer employment opportunities.

In July Gallup reported that “With thousands of undocumented immigrant minors crossing the nation’s southern border in recent months, the percentage of Americans citing immigration as the top problem has surged to 17% this month, up from 5% in June, and the highest seen since 2006. As a result, immigration now virtually ties ‘dissatisfaction with government’ at 16%, as the primary issue Americans think of when asked to name the country’s top problems.”

The Affordable Patient Care Act—Obamacare—is the perfect example of Socialism in its government control of what once was the world’s finest healthcare system and is being destroyed by a law for which only Democrats in Congress voted.

President Obama has illegally asserted more power than the Constitution grants the executive branch, unilaterally altering Obamacare. It is the reason the House of Representatives is suing him.

For several generations since the last century, Americans have been indoctrinated to accept an ever-growing central government, but even so an August Reason-Rupe survey poll found that fully 54% favored a smaller government providing fewer services. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 75% disapprove.

Though education is never mentioned in the Constitution, we have a Department of Education and the same applies to the Department of Energy, both created by Jimmy Carter. A Nixon executive order brought about the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency that is masterminding an attack on private property along with the manufacturing, agricultural and energy sectors of the economy.

If one looks at the Democratic Party today, there is often scant difference between it and the self-professed Communist Party USA which twice endorsed the election of Barack Obama, a man whose father was a Communist, whose grandparents who helped raise him were Socialists, and who was mentored in his youth by a card-carrying member of the CPUSA.

We have a President who believes that the problems throughout the world have been caused by America. His disdain for the nation and the military that serves to protect it is on full display. And the Democratic Party twice chose him as its candidate.

If you want to see what Communism looks like, acts and says, watch and listen to the Democratic Party.

-----------------

Tags: democrats,communists,socialists,progressives,fools,ignorance To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Clearly, for large portions of voters, IGNORANCE is bliss

The Key Demographic of America’s Wrong-Information Voters



Text  



From the Tuesday Morning Jolt:
The Key Demographic of America’s Wrong-Information Voters
Liz Sheld, examining some Pew survey results and confirming our worst suspicions, that a significant minority of the electorate walk around believing that certain political terms mean the opposite of what they really do:
Looking just at the first question, which Pew has used to determine whether people who say they are libertarians actually know what the term means, 57% correctly identified the definition of “libertarian” with the proper corresponding ideological label. Looking at the other answers, an astonishing 20% say that someone who emphasizes freedom and less government is a progressive, 6% say that is the definition of an authoritarian and 6% say that is the definition of a communist.
As E. Strobel notes, “The term ‘low-info voter’ is inadequate. . . . More like ‘wrong-info voter.’”
Perhaps when we’re trying to persuade the electorate as a whole, we have to toss out terms like “conservative” or “libertarian.” Not because they’re not accurate, but because they represent obscure hieroglyphics to a chunk of the people we’re trying to persuade.
If you’re one of these perpetually tuned-out voters, maybe words like “conservative” or “libertarian” are signals that indicate, Hey, this is that politics stuff that you don’t like to hear about, so you can stop paying attention now. This is frustrating, and I understand and feel the irritation that we have to water down or dumb down our arguments because some voters can’t be bothered to understand some concepts we find pretty basic.
We political junkies love political philosophies, and keep subdividing ourselves into smaller and more precise groupings. (Crunchy Cons! Neoconservatives! Libertarian Populism! Reform Conservatives! Eisenhower Anarchist!) We love these labels and terms, because we feel that they help explain a coherent way of looking at the world, government, the Constitution, human rights, society, etc. But to a lot of people, they might as well be Dungeons & Dragons character classes. They don’t know which political philosophy best matches how they see the world because they flat-out don’t understand the terms and, perhaps most maddeningly, are not convinced that they need to know them — nor much about anything else.
Recall Jonah Goldberg’s column to those self-proclaimed “socially liberal, fiscal conservative” types who are, in fact, actually “socially liberal and fiscally liberal”:
When George W. Bush added nearly $5 trillion in national debt in two terms you were scandalized. When Obama added more than that in one term, you yawned. When, in 2006, then-senator Obama condemned Bush’s failure of leadership and vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling, you thought him a statesman. Obama, who wants to borrow trillions more, now admits that was purely a “political vote.”
A little while back, I talked about celebrities who are not closely identified with the Republican party or conservative movement, who can articulate a conservative approach to an issue, and enjoy widespread applause: Adam Carolla, HGTV host Nicole Curtis, CNN host/chef Anthony Bourdain, Mike Rowe of “Dirty Jobs,” Gene Simmons of KISS . . . They say what they think, directly, but they rarely if ever frame their arguments in terms of political philosophies.
Which argument is likely to be most effective?
A) School choice is a good idea because it is consistent with the conservative principles that the government that is closest to the people is most likely to make the best decisions, is most accountable for those decisions, and is easiest to correct those decisions.
B) School choice is a good idea because it is consistent with the libertarian principles that the power of the state should be limited and the power of the individual should be maximized.
C) School choice is a good idea because it puts decisions in the hands of parents, who know what is best for their children

Tags: Ignorance,stupidity,wrong info,mass media,msm,democrats,socialism To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Dear Millennials: Hollywood, Your Favorite Bands, and Your College Professors Have Been Lying To You About Life


I feel sorry for Millennials. We are leaving them an almost insurmountable debt, an American Dream that seems tarnished, and chances are, they're not going to have it as good as their parents.
However, we've done something even worse to these kids. We've left far too much of their education in life to Hollywood, musicians, and college professors who've passed on a skewed view of the world. Not only have most of these kids never been told the truth about how the world works, they've been told that anyone who even tries to tell them the truth should be immediately tuned out because they're boring, mean and "uncool."
Unfortunately for them, reality doesn't care about boring, mean or "uncool." It just keeps rolling on like a threshing machine, cutting anyone who ignores it to pieces.
With that in mind, do you REALLY want to know why America has been so prosperous? Want to know why we're a superpower?
It's because of Judeo-Christian values, Western culture, a Puritan work ethic, patriotism, capitalism, small government, adherence to the Constitution, and a capability and willingness to use our military to decimate enemies of our country.
None of those things are being celebrated in songs by Lady Gaga, movies by James Cameron, or in women's studies courses at American colleges.
Do you want to know who has made America successful?
Ninety eight percent of the businesses, inventions, and great ideas that made America a cultural, economic, and military superpower came from old dead white guys of the sort who are sneered at on college campuses as bigoted, awful relics of bygone eras. That's ironic if you think about it because without those men the colleges where they're being sneered at wouldn't exist.
So much of our country is like that.
The only reason we have so much money to "redistribute" is because we spent so long devoted to capitalism. The only reason we feel so comfortable mocking Christianity is that we think a culture shaped by Christian morals will hold together anyway. We're become so confident that our culture will remain steeped in patriotism and Western values that we've come to believe we can allow an unlimited number of foreigners who don't share those values to enter our country illegally without changing anything.
Confidence is a good thing, but when it's coupled with a people who stop doing the things that make them successful, it becomes hubris.
We've forgotten that rich people and corporations can move out of the country, that people will change their behavior when it no longer benefits them, that no matter what our race, color, or creed, we all suffer if our culture becomes a corrupt sewer and that many great nations have been laid low when they stopped doing the things that made them successful. We've forgotten that we're one nation in a competitive world, full of other countries that yearn to see us trampled in the dust so they can have their day in the sun. We've forgotten that we're competing with workers in India, corporations from Britain, and with resource-hogging governments like China and Russia -- and guess what? They're all hungrier than we are because life has already taught them the hard way that you don't get participation trophies just for showing up.
We've forgotten not only how our country became successful, but the people who are making it successful.
We're successful because a lot of steady, responsible people do boring jobs that have to be done. It's the man who works 40 hours in his first job and another 20 hours a week at a part-time job so he can pay the bills for his wife and kids. It's the stay-at-home mom with spit-up on her blouse who has been on her feet for hours cleaning and taking care of the kids. It's the small businessman who worked 70 hours a week for peanuts over the last decade to get his business to the point where he can have people complain that he's not paying enough in taxes. It's the single mother who gives up partying every night to make sure her child is taken care of like he should be. It's the pastor who says something from the pulpit that will be controversial, but that his flock needs to hear. It's the cop who sweats through a half dozen encounters with drunk, drugged, and potentially violent creeps each night because he cares about keeping a neighborhood safe. It's a soldier sleeping in a tent far from home because he's doing his part to keep the peace. It's the couple who feels like they've achieved the American dream because they got married, bought a house, had two kids, and are putting enough money in their 401k to retire someday.
Those people don't get the respect they deserve because they're more concerned with doing their jobs, paying their bills, and making sure their kids get every advantage possible rather than yelling about "the patriarchy" or protesting the "oppression" of people who are asked to take a drug test to get their welfare benefits. No one is making any reality shows about people like them and if they do make it onto the silver screen, the Christian is a jerk, the dad is a buffoon, mom is a crabby Stepford wife, the southerner is a toothless redneck, the cop is crooked, the soldier is a mindless drone, the businessman is screwing everyone for profit and they're all living bland, oppressive lives waiting for some pampered pretty person to show up and teach them the error of their ways.
Hollywood, academia, and popular culture champion a world where snark has replaced wisdom, marriage isn't considered a lifetime commitment, where there's spirituality without God, where it's better to be silent than to risk offending someone, where people don't understand that everything is a trade-off, and where the more happy, successful and well-adjusted you are, the more likely it must be that you screwed someone else over to get that way.
Contrary to what you may hear from Jay-Z, Miley Cyrus, and your college professors, life is not about how many times you get laid, how much marijuana you smoke, and embracing trendy causes to impress your friends.
It's about working 10 times harder than you thought you'd have to in order to get half as far. It's about struggling through your twenties and working like a dog in your thirties to start to accumulate some money in your forties. It's about trying to find a decent house in a nice neighborhood near a good school for your family. It's about taking more satisfaction in buying a gift for someone else than getting something for yourself. It's saying a prayer for a friend or family member who’s about to have an operation. It's about doing the right thing, not getting recognized for it and being fine with that because it was always about doing the right thing for you.
If that sounds frightening or depressing because it doesn't involve partying, getting blackout drunk and having sweaty sex in the alley behind a bar every few months, it's not. You can take a lot of pride in earning your keep, paying your own way, and doing your part to take care of yourself, your family and your country. It's also the sort of quiet lifestyle most successful Americans actually live as opposed to the funhouse mirror image of reality that's glorified in our popular culture.
One day, Millennials are likely to have a burden put on their shoulders almost as big as the ones the Greatest Generation carried, but they won't have the faith, the work ethic and the road-of-hard-knocks education gained from living through the Depression to carry them through. For their sake and the sake of our country, let's hope that enough of them have listened to their parents, their grandparents, and their churches instead of Hollywood, their favorite bands, and their college professors.

Tags: Socialists,socialism,ignorance,democrats,liars,fools,students To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Monday, August 25, 2014

Same-Sex Marriage
by Kerby Anderson

Subscribe to Kerby's Point of View

Whatever you may think about it, same-sex marriage matters to the church and to the future of our society. It is becoming a reality to America, and we need to know how to respond. Sean McDowell and John Stonestreet take on the issue in a fresh and practical way in their book, Same-Sex Marriage: A Thoughtful Approach to God's Design for Marriage.

They begin by providing a helpful overview of what just happened to our culture. Then they provide both biblical and secular analysis to the issue of same-sex marriage. While it is important to know what God thinks about marriage, it is even more helpful to show why traditional marriage is important even if you don't accept the Bible and its teachings. There are good secular arguments for traditional marriage.

Consider these three undeniable facts of reality. Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman brings babies. Societies have a vested interest in the process that produces children. Numerous studies demonstrate that children fare better when cared for by their biological mothers and fathers. Put simply: sex makes babies; society needs babies, and babies deserve mothers and fathers. That is why societies have recognized and managed these three truths, both culturally and legally.

In the second part of the book, they talk about what we can do for marriage. They say we should learn from the success of the homosexual movement that radically changed America's thinking about same-sex marriage in less than two decades. They also believe that Christians should repent of bad attitudes. We should repent of telling inappropriate jokes that dehumanize gays and lesbians or treating people differently because of their sexual orientation.

Their final chapter provides lots of practical suggestions for everyday questions. What if a gay friend, co-worker or family member announces that they are getting married to their partner? Fortunately, they provide practical and biblical answers to questions we will have to consider in this new cultural and social e
nvironment.

Tags: homosexuality,politically correct,wrong,sexual liberty,christian,biblical To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Hyper-Democracy And Progressive Oligarchy

When will the silent, discontent, and disengaged majority awaken to the reality that the peace they’ve been promised is a political mirage?

According to conventional wisdom, Americans start paying closer attention to elections after Labor Day. The reality they will return to after their summer vacation from American politics is highlighted by popular  unrest (centered, for now, in Ferguson, MO) and elite partisanship (featuring an indictment in Austin, TX, and lawsuits and impeachment talk in Washington, DC). In other words, they’ll return to a political setting much the same (with different flash points) as the one they left behind in late May.
These headlines and the apparently perpetual problems they highlight represent an unpleasant distraction from the already overwhelming busyness of daily life, and thus promise to keep a good portion of the American public on the political sidelines, and an even larger group of Americans questioning the direction of the country. A stale inertia seems to be the norm, a political game without a clear-cut winner and many a participant injured along the way.
Upon closer examination, however, one finds, as we argued last week, that the reverse is true: that there is a dynamic force in American politics producing a consistent winner capable of putting the dynasties of the Yankees, Celtics, Canadiens, and Steelers to shame: Progressivism and its champion, the DC Oligarchs, whose worst season still rewards handsomely its dedicated if dependent fan base.
How is it that in a hyper-egalitarian age a purportedly democratic ideology has produced the seemingly-intractable oligarchic ruling class that dominates American politics?
Alexis de Tocqueville provides a clue in Democracy in America: “Democratic nations often hate those in whose hands the central power is vested, but they always love that power itself.” Whereas democratic equality promised to make men free and independent, Tocqueville argues that it eventually empowers collective institutions rather than individuals, as democratic peoples love “public tranquility”–and no power promises to secure a more stable peace than the centralized state.
Political victory in a democratic age requires partisans to present a vision of peace acceptable to the multitude and to demonstrate thereafter that they are best prepared to keep the peace. Progressive oligarchs have been wildly successful on both fronts, promising a peace like no other–prosperous and perpetual–and employing the accumulated resources of the United States to carry out their program, all the while winning many of the rhetorical battles with pleasing slogans that appeal to the vanity, prejudices, and passions of the people. While following a banner promising more liberty and freedom, individuals find themselves more powerless against the vicissitudes of life, and more willing to exchange their liberty for security.
The American founders were very much aware of this paradox of democratic politics, as James Madison demonstrates in Federalist 58. Although sympathetic to those wishing to see the House of Representatives grow with the American population, Madison warns that the larger the assembly, “the greater the ascendancy of passion over reason”–and the “the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings.” He continues:
The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed.
Perhaps no two sentences could better summarize the political consequences of Progressivism as they have unfolded over the last century. Popular election of senators, universal voting rights for women, state-level tools like initiative and referendum: all were democratizing measures advocated and enacted with energy by Progressives in the first two decades of the 20th century. And yet, a century later, the individual citizen has a smaller share in his own governance, less confidence in less accountable leaders, and less control over his daily life than at any previous point in our nation’s history–and every instinct of the ruling class promises to make things even worse.
Consider an important parallel between the lawsuit against President Obama and the recent indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry.
A month ago, President Obama was all but begging House Republicans to impeach him, cynically calculating, it would seem, that nothing would raise money for the fall election campaign or energize otherwise dispirited Democratic voters like a good impeachment. Speaker Boehner, of course, demurred, fearing perhaps that President Obama’s calculations might be correct, and instead hoping a stern lawsuit might keep more spirited Republican voters energized. However this plays into the midterm election campaign, one result is assured: that a political dispute over executive power has been turned over to the non-political branch of government for proper expert disposal.
A month ago, President Obama was all but begging House Republicans to impeach him, cynically calculating, it would seem, that nothing would raise money for the fall election campaign or energize otherwise dispirited Democratic voters like a good impeachment.
Ditto the ongoing struggle between Austin and the rest of the state of Texas, which resulted in Governor Perry’s indictment on extremely flimsy abuse of power charges. “If you can’t beat them, indict them” is an ugly mode of politics, but it is also the negation of politics–another deferral to the experts, of sorts.
Democratic passions beget a trump-card style politics and oligarchic management. Is there any feasible alternative?
James Madison did not expect that the American republic, if properly constructed, would inaugurate an era when reason reigned unchallenged. In fact, given human nature, he didn’t even advocate that. “[T]he most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage to have the prejudices of the community on its side,” he argued in Federalist 49. What he cautioned against, rather, was liberating passion from any responsibility to right.
In Federalist 49, that meant cultivating a “veneration” for the good government created by the Constitution; buttressing the conclusions of “enlightened reason” with the “prejudices of the community.” In Federalist 58, he showed how calculations of personal honor and interest–and the House’s control over government spending–could be used to move the reluctant to support “every just and salutary measure.” Republican politics, as Madison described (and practiced) it, is fundamentally about persuasion toward the good–not the coercive passion of the mob or the coercive decree of the functionary.
Madison knew very well what Aristotle had taught 2000 years before–that persuasion is an art involving the reason and the passions of the audience, as well as the character of the speaker. Republican government respects the dignity of the individual not only by protecting his fundamental rights, but by addressing him as a whole, mature human being, not as an animal to be controlled or a child to be commanded–and not as a hyper-rational Vulcan, either.
In different ways, this is equally absent from the Boehner lawsuit, the Perry indictment, and more or less any speech by President Obama. Speaker Boehner could make the public case against the president’s lawlessness in pressing for impeachment or by invoking Madison’s favorite tool, the power of the purse–perhaps persuasively, given the merits of the case. Governor Perry’s opponents could make their own argument about executive abuse if they dare or look for a more plausible line of complaint. President Obama could engage real opponents rather than strawmen and real arguments rather than caricatures. All would then be forced to lead in a truly republican manner, grappling publicly with justice in a more responsible and meaningful way in order to win the assent of the people at large.
But they haven’t and therefore they didn’t. The question that remains is whether that will matter. Those checking in after a summer away from politics can as easily check out again. The minority planning to vote in November can vote their bum back in and hope everyone else throws theirs out. The wheel will turn; the breathless analysis will be written; Washington will yawn, as the Oligarchs win again.
Or the silent, discontent, and disengaged majority will awaken to the reality that the peace they’ve been promised is a political mirage, and that only through their active life-long engagement is regime change possible in the United States. A republic, if you can keep it; a republic if you can reclaim it.
David Corbin is a Professor of Politics and Matthew Parks an Assistant Professor of Politics at The King’s College, New York City. They are co-authors of “Keeping Our Republic: Principles for a Political Reformation” (2011). You can follow their work on Twitter or Facebook.

Tags: GOP.democrats,communists,socialists,progressives,washington dc,government,liars,republic,votes,liberty To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!