A Message for the Anti-Vaccine Movement

Amazing Eagles in Dutch Harbor

Friday Funnies

Red's Rant

Hump Day Hunnies

No, Slavery Didn’t Build America

The issue of slavery in the United States was ultimately decided by the Civil War (1861-1865). It was
a showdown between the free North and the slave South, amongst other things. It was also one of the first “total wars” seen by the West in a very long time.

As Warfare in the Western World: Military Operations from 1600 to 1871, describes it:

“The final year of the Civil War witnessed the full bloom of total war. No western state in centuries had waged a military contest more comprehensively than did the Union and Confederacy. Determined national efforts the world had seen: during the Napoleonic Wars the Spanish and Russian people had fought relentlessly against the French invaders; and in 1813 the Russians had pursued the retreating French for nearly a thousand miles. Yet neither the Spanish nor the Russians had mobilized their populations and economies as systematically as did the North and South.”

If we are to judge who or what “built” America, we must honestly look at the legacy and the strength of each. The reality is that the slave-holding South lost the Civil War. Why? Why, if slavery built America, was it not able to provide the strength needed to the South to be able to crush the North? And what did the North have that made it so great without the aid of slavery?

Read more:
No, slavery didn’t build America. | Intellectual Takeout

Offended?

4 Reasons ‘Trump is not my president’ Claim is Foolish

The Inauguration of Donald Trump was remarkable in many ways, not the least of which was that six
different individuals offered prayers, with four of those prayers ending in Jesus’ name and the other two openly quoting from the Bible. Clearly absent was the typical government-mandated politically correct prayer. Ministers were once again allowed to pray according to the dictates of their own conscience, as originally intended by the U.S. Constitution.

Another unique feature of his Inauguration was the large number of protesters present. Most were millennials, and while some focused on single subjects (e.g., immigration, global warming, Obamacare), others were still protesting the general election results. Among the latter group, a common protest sign said, “Trump is not my president.” But that statement says more about our education system than it does about those who held the signs. It affirms the failure of American education in four areas: American history, government, Constitution and truth.

First, the sign was intended to express their outrage over the fact that Hillary won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes (out of 128.8 million cast) but lost the presidency – an outcome they believed was unprecedented in the history of American elections. Only it wasn’t. The identical thing has happened in several other presidential elections. Shame on schools for not teaching basic American history and why such outcomes occur.

Second, the message on the sign was rooted in the protesters’ mistaken belief that America is a democracy. But we are not. Those who formed our government hated democracies and wisely protected us from them. For example, James Madison affirmed that “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” Founder Fisher Ames warned, “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction,” and John Adams lamented that democracy “never lasts long. … There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” For thousands of years, democracies have consistently proved to be a source of lurking disaster – an unpredictable form of government where passions and selfishness are allowed to prevail over reason and deliberation. America was therefore established as a constitutional republic – what John Adams described as “a government of laws and not of men.” Shame on schools for not teaching basic American government.

Read more:
4 reasons ‘Trump is not my president’ claim is foolish

Friday Funnies

Tax Cuts For The Rich?

Despite the preponderance of contrary evidence, myths persist that tax cuts primarily benefit "the rich" and have no discernible impact on economic growth.

Months ago, for instance, Hillary Clinton charged that "slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn't worked.  And a lot of really smart, wealthy people know that."

She's right that it hasn't worked, but she failed to mention that it's also never happened.  The tired "tax cuts for the rich" canard is disproven by the 1920s, the 1960s, the 1980s, and the 2000s, when tax rates were reduced for all – and especially low – income groups.

As I've explained before, the argument is maintained by misleadingly observing raw dollars rather than percentage cuts.  Since top earners begin with higher incomes (and tax burdens), a smaller-percentage tax cut translates into more dollars than does a larger-percentage tax cut for lower earners.  For instance, a 10-percent tax cut to someone earning $1 million is a lot more in dollars than a 20-percent tax cut for someone who's earning $100,000, when in fact the person earning the lesser amount receives a steeper percentage cut.

Consider the rate reductions under George W. Bush.  The top rate was lowered from 39.6 percent to 35 percent – a 13-percent decline.  Meanwhile, the bottom rate dropped from 15 percent to 10 percent – a 33-percent reduction.  So yes, the cuts were tilted, but toward the bottom.  (It's also worth noting that 10,000 low-income earners were removed from the income tax rolls entirely)

Moreover, the result of the cuts was that a larger proportion of total income tax revenue was paid by the wealthy.  As Brian Riedl noted:

The share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 percent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.

Quite the opposite of "helping the rich."


Read more:
Blog: Tax cuts for the rich?

Hump Day Hunnies

Obamacare's Catastrophic Effect on Small Business

During the debate over passage of Obamacare back in 2010, opponents warned that the effect on small businesses would be severe. They pointed out that businesses with less than 50 employees would be reluctant to expand, given the law's requirement that all businesses that employed more than 50 people would have to offer insurance.

There were also warnings that the costs of Obamacare would prevent small business from adding necessary employees. In other words, insurance requirements would drive the great jobs engine in the American economy and not business considerations. Small businesses create 70% of jobs in the US and placing shackles on that sector of the economy would be ruinous for job creation.

Flash forward nearly 7 years later and you can see the wholesale damage Obamacare has inflicted on small businesses.

Read more:
Blog: Obamacare's catastrophic effect on small business

One Billion Dollars

If I give you $1 billion and you stand on a street corner handing out $1.00 second, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, you would still not have handed out $1 billion after 31 years!!

A VERY BIG NUMBER

This is too true to be funny. The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money.

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its
releases.

A.     A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B.     A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C.     A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
D.     A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
E.     A billion Dollars ago was only 13 hours and 12 minutes, at the rate our  present government is spending it.

Stamp Duty
Tobacco Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Income Tax
Council Tax
Unemployment Tax
Fishing Licence Tax
Petrol/Diesel Tax
Inheritance Tax
(tax on top of tax)
Alcohol Tax
G.S.T.
Property Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Vehicle Licence / Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Carbon Dioxide Tax

Not one of these taxes existed 60 years ago and our nation was one of the
most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt.

We had the largest middle class in the world.

Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

Dad and teachers were allowed to discipline kids.

A criminal’s life was uncomfortable.

What the hell!  Happened?

U.S. Marine Reveals Truth About Donald Trump's Travel Ban

Friday Funnies

How Government Wrecked the Gas Can

The gas gauge broke. There was no smartphone app to tell me how much was left, so I ran out. I had to
call the local gas station to give me enough to get on my way. The gruff but lovable attendant arrived in his truck and started to pour gas in my car’s tank. And pour. And pour.

“Hmmm, I just hate how slow these gas cans are these days,” he grumbled. “There’s no vent on them.”

That sound of frustration in this guy’s voice was strangely familiar, the grumble that comes when something that used to work but doesn’t work anymore, for some odd reason we can’t identify.

I’m pretty alert to such problems these days. Soap doesn’t work. Toilets don’t flush. Clothes washers don’t clean. Light bulbs don’t illuminate. Refrigerators break too soon. Paint discolors. Lawnmowers have to be hacked. It’s all caused by idiotic government regulations that are wrecking our lives one consumer product at a time, all in ways we hardly notice.

It’s like the barbarian invasions that wrecked Rome, taking away the gains we’ve made in bettering our lives. It’s the bureaucrats’ way of reminding market producers and consumers who is in charge.

Surely, the gas can is protected. It’s just a can, for goodness sake. Yet he was right. This one doesn’t have a vent. Who would make a can without a vent unless it was done under duress? After all, everyone knows to vent anything that pours. Otherwise, it doesn’t pour right and is likely to spill.

It took one quick search. The whole trend began in (wait for it) California. Regulations began in 2000, with the idea of preventing spillage. The notion spread and was picked up by the EPA, which is always looking for new and innovative ways to spread as much human misery as possible.

An ominous regulatory announcement from the EPA came in 2007: “Starting with containers manufactured in 2009… it is expected that the new cans will be built with a simple and inexpensive permeation barrier and new spouts that close automatically.”

The government never said “no vents.” It abolished them de facto with new standards that every state had to adopt by 2009. So for the last three years, you have not been able to buy gas cans that work properly. They are not permitted to have a separate vent. The top has to close automatically. There are other silly things now, too, but the biggest problem is that they do not do well what cans are supposed to do.

Read the rest:
How Government Wrecked the Gas Can | Foundation for Economic Education

Hump Day Hunnies

How the Crop Circle Phenomenon Got Started

Dear Democrats: Nobody Cares About Your Feelings

Democrats have lost three of the last four federal elections—2010, 2014 and 2016—in large part
because they are still clinging to the comforting but false notion that voters punish bad behavior.

The Democrats’ 2016 presidential campaign essentially focused on proving Donald Trump was too boorish to be an acceptable occupant of the highest office in the land. And in the lead-up to the 2010 and 2014 midterms, Democrats railed against Congressional Republicans’ obstruction of President Obama, decrying the GOP’s refusal to give the administration any cooperation, even on issues where pollsters showed high levels of support from the public. Their complaints failed, and Republicans won.

More than two months after the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton, there seems to be no evidence that Democrats have learned anything. They continue to harp on whatever makes Trump look “unpresidential,” and while there is unquestionably plenty of material there, it is also clear that there aren’t enough voters who care about such things to swing an election. If there were, Trump would not have prevailed.

Clinton won the popular vote, and she won it decisively, by nearly three million ballots. That brings us to another thing Democrats haven’t learned, but need to soon: the necessity of focusing on what’s important. In terms of winning and losing, it’s irrelevant that Clinton won the popular vote. Whether you like our unfair, undemocratic electoral college system or not (for the record, this columnist doesn’t), we’re stuck with it unless we change the Constitution or enough states band together to create a work-around. It’s fine that Clinton won by four million votes in California, but strategically speaking, it would have been far more important for Democrats to turn out another 80,000 votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If you can’t change the rules, you have to figure out how to win by the current ones.

Read more:
Dear Democrats: Nobody Cares About Your Feelings | Observer

Germany: Migrants In, Germans Out

German authorities are applying heavy-handed tactics to find housing for the hundreds of thousands of
migrants and refugees pouring into the country from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

With existing shelters filled to capacity, federal, state and local authorities are now using legally and morally dubious measures — including the expropriation of private property and the eviction of German citizens from their homes — to make room for the newcomers.

German taxpayers are also being obliged to make colossal economic sacrifices to accommodate the influx of migrants, many of whom have no prospect of ever finding a job in the country. Sustaining the 800,000 migrants and refugees who are expected to arrive in Germany in 2015 will cost taxpayers at least at least 11 billion euros ($12 billion) a year for years to come.

As the migration crisis intensifies, and Germans are waking up to the sheer scale of the economic, financial and social costs they will expected to bear in the years ahead, anger is brewing.

In Hamburg, the second-largest city in Germany, municipal officials on September 23 introduced an audacious bill in the local parliament (Hamburgische Bürgerschaft) that would allow the city to seize vacant commercial real estate (office buildings and land) and use it to house migrants.

City officials argue the measure is necessary because more than 400 new migrants are arriving in Hamburg each day and all the existing refugee shelters are full. They say that owners of vacant real estate have refused to make their property available to the city on a voluntary basis, and thus the city should be given the right to take it by force.

The measure, which will be voted upon in the Hamburg parliament within the next two weeks, is being applauded by those on the left of the political spectrum. "We are doing everything we can to ensure that the refugees are not homeless during the coming winter," Senator Till Steffen of the Green Party said. "For this reason, we need to use vacant commercial properties."

Others argue that efforts by the state to seize private property are autocratic and reek of Communism. "The proposed confiscation of private land and buildings is a massive attack on the property rights of the citizens of Hamburg," said André Trepoll of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU). "It amounts to an expropriation by the state." He said the proposed measure is a "law of intimidation" that amounts to a "political dam break with far-reaching implications." He added: "The ends do not justify any and all means."

The leader of the Free Democrats (FDP) in Hamburg, Katja Suding, said that the proposed law is an "unacceptable crossing of red lines... Such coercive measures will only fuel resentment against refugees."

In Tübingen, a town in Baden-Württemberg, Mayor Boris Palmer (also of the Green Party), is making offers to rent or buy vacant properties to house migrants. But he is also threatening to confiscate the property of landlords who dare to reject his offer. In an interview with the newspaper Die Welt, Palmer said:

"In the written offers, I advise that the Police Law (Polizeigesetz) gives us the possibility, in cases of emergency, to confiscate homes for several months. The law provides for seizure in emergencies. I want to avoid this, but if there is no other way, I will make use of this law."

When asked if he was afraid of lawsuits, Palmer said:

"No. The Police Law has clear rules. When the town is threatened with homelessness, empty homes may be confiscated. This emergency can happen when accommodations are overcrowded and we continue to receive 50 new migrants in Tübingen. If a property is confiscated, we would order immediate enforcement. That is to say, a lawsuit to determine the legality of the confiscation can only be resolved after the fact. But the accommodation would succeed in any event."

In February 2015, officials in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) seized a private resort in the town of Olpe to provide housing for up to 400 migrants. The initial plan was for the town to purchase the resort from its Bavarian owners and rent it to NRW, but NRW officials decided to confiscate the property instead. According to NRW Interior Minister Ralf Jäger, properties may be seized whenever there is a "threat to public order and safety," and the threat of mass homelessness among migrants fits the bill.
In Nieheim, another town in NRW, Mayor Rainer Vidal is using a legal maneuver called "right of repossession" (Eigenbedarf) to terminate the leases of German citizens living in state-owned apartment buildings so that migrants can move in.

On September 1, 51-year-old Bettina Halbey, who has been living in her apartment for more than 16 years, received a letter notifying her that she must vacate her apartment by May 2016 so that migrants can move in. Halbey was shell-shocked:

"I'm completely taken by surprise. I find it impossible to understand how the city can treat me like this. I cannot come to grips with this situation. I have struggled through life with grief and sorrow and now I get an eviction notice. It is a like a kick in the stomach."

Halbey, a nurse, says that it will be difficult for her to find another place to live: "I have a dog and a cat. Many landlords will not even consider renting to me."

Read more:
Germany: Migrants In, Germans Out

Losing Power Has Left the Democrat Party Dazed and Confused

The Democrats know they are in trouble, but they probably don’t know just how deep the trouble is. At the national level the party is now further out of power than it’s been since 1928. This lack of power and control is a problem in and of itself, but it is an even larger problem for what it portends for the party’s future. The party’s problems are deep and systemic and there are no clear remedies.

For the first time in over three generations the Republican Party controls the U.S. Senate, the Congress, and the White House. In all probability, there will soon be a conservative, not liberal, Supreme Court. Not only is there a vacancy on the Supreme Court that Donald Trump can fill, there are 104 vacant federal judgeships waiting for his nominations when he takes office. The judiciary has been the left’s go-to option when they fail to achieve their objectives legislatively. This change in the nature of the judiciary could last for decades.

Lack of power has profound implications for Democrats. Power is the Party’s raison d’être and sine qua non. Without power the party is broke and broken.

Consider, for example, one crucial element of their reliance on “identity politics,” specifically, organized labor. Organized labor is perhaps the single most important and dependable factor in the Democratic Party’s long-term success. In fact, Britain’s equivalent of the Democrat Party is called the Labour Party.

Democrats rely on a perverse variation of voluntary exchange. In exchange for votes, campaign contributions, and election workers, Democrats deliver legislation and regulations favorable to unions. The system works well for both entities, but it only works so long as Democrats have the power to keep their part of the bargain.

On the other side of the quid pro quo, there has to be a sufficient population of union members in order to generate an adequate amount of campaign funds. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the percentage of the U.S. labor force in unions has declined from 20 percent in 1983 to 11 percent now. Less than seven percent of the private workforce is unionized. Thirty-five percent of government employees are union members, but that too is in jeopardy. When President Trump fills the current Supreme Court vacancy, mandatory union dues could well be ruled unconstitutional. That could be a double whammy — reduced union membership and a reduced supply of campaign funds. Trump has said that he wants to reduce the federal workforce by 20 percent. What a glorious accomplishment that would be.

Another major contributor to the Democratic Party’s past success has been the mainstream media, i.e. the major television networks and big city newspapers. The media could not have tried any harder than it did to get Hillary Clinton elected President. They did everything in their power to convince voters that Donald Trump was a despicable racist and sexist, someone who was absolutely “unfit” to be President. It didn’t work. They can’t simply double down on their efforts in the next election because they’ve already exhausted that option.

The media tried so hard to elect Hillary their intentions became blatant and their efforts became counterproductive. They may well have increased rather than decreased Donald Trump’s popularity. Not only did their efforts backfire, the media also paid a high price in terms of credibility.

Read the rest of this story here:
Losing Power Has Left the Democrat Party Dazed and Confused | The American Spectator

Friday Funnies