Ramadan Bombathon – Day 8: London Bridge

According to TheReligionofPeace.com website, 451 innocent people have been killed in 41 attacks in the name of Islam. Last night’s attack on the world-famous London Bridge (the one in London, not Arizona), a simple, flat span, seven people were killed and over 45 were in injured when a white van sped across London Bridge and onto the sidewalk, mowing down pedestrians.


The van came to a crashing stop in front of a church. Between three and five terrorists emerged from the vehicle and ran into nearby Borough Market, an area filled with pubs and restaurants.  Once there, they began stabbing people.  Local bars shut their doors in an effort to keep the terrorists out.


Metropolitan police evacuated hotels and residential apartments in the area, shouting at people to keep down until they could determine whether any terrorists were in the midst. Later news video showed frightened tourists and residents hurrying down the sidewalks, their hands on their hands so the police wouldn’t shoot them.


Mark Rowley, head of counter-terrorism police, said eight officers had fired about 50 bullets to stop the attackers, who appeared to be suicide bombers because they were wearing what turned out to be fake suicide vests.


London’s Metropolitan Police arrested 12 people in the Barking district of east London in connection with the attack and raids were continuing there, the force said. A Reuters photographer saw another raid take place in nearby East Ham.


A third incident – another stabbing – was said to have occurred in Vauxhall. But police said the incident was not related to the London Bridge/Borough Market attack.  They claimed it was a false alarm reported in good faith.  However, the Metro Police issued this tweet at 7:51 p.m. EDT confirming that there had been a stabbing:


Metropolitan Police

✔ @metpoliceuk

The incident at #Vauxhall is a stabbing and is not connect to the incidents at #LondonBridge & #BoroughMarket

7:51 PM – 3 Jun 2017


There is a bridge over the Thames at Vauxhall, London, and on the south side of the river, the Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens, a park that once served as an entertainment venue two or three centuries ago.


Once again, the authorities are wringing their hands over this vicious attack. According to the Muslim Mayor of London,  Sadiq Khan, there’s “nothing to be alarmed about” and that ‘if President Trump doesn’t allow Muslims to migrate into America, there will be more attacks.’


British Prime Minister Theresa May admits that security must do more to make London and Great Britain safer from terrorist attacks. Numerous experts on Islamic terrorism say, however, that there are 23,000 known terrorists in England.  In order to monitor them, the United Kingdom would need to deploy over 1 million security experts – about 60 for every terrorist.


The Media, of both varieties, proudly point to our secular, multicultural society that cherishes its freedom. Do we cherish freedom?  Or are we attracted to license, to do anything and everything that comes to our addled brains without considering the consequences?


We love our freedom so much that, while we castigate Kathy Giffin for posting a picture of herself holding a modeled head of Donald Trump, while we deplore what she did, and while we express our disgust, we don’t go so far as to actually outlaw her freedom of speech – although the Secret Service certainly should investigate because she certainly crossed the red line in issuing a threatening photo of our President.


Last night, I was assigned to photograph a local carnival. A carnival being what it is, filled with high-flying amusement rides, since I can’t afford a photo-drone, I was forced to take the pictures from the ground up.  I had to take the pictures very carefully because the children, particularly the girls, were glad in extremely short shorts.  When short-shorts were first introduced, worn by adult women, the more decent elements of society were outraged.  Guys liked them fine.


The argument is that parents should be able to dress their children anyway they please and photographers trying to capture a family event, at a church carnival, no less, be damned. ‘Why are you looking at my kid, anyway!?’  No one wants to look at your damned kid, especially so scantily clad.


Needless to say, I avoided the unseemly shots and got respectable pictures of kids on the ferris wheel. I’m convinced that modern parents have very little common sense, especially parents who take their kid to an Ariana Grande concert, or worse, to hear Katy Perry sing.  No one’s saying you have to dress your kids in shrouds, but for crying out loud, can’t you cover them a little better than that?


However, our culture stands behind its right to bare it all, let it all hang out, as they used to say in the Sixties and Seventies. It’s all hanging out and enraged religious fanatics are cutting it off.


What we have here is not a War on Terror or Terrorism – what a ridiculous phrase. This is a war on our culture and our way of life.  The fact that we point to our status as a “secular” culture or society says a lot about why we aren’t winning “The War on Terror.”


We demand secular solutions – more cops, more concrete barriers, more security, more surveillance, more and better immigration rules (that’s about the only solution that’s correct). Apparently, the one thing our secular society hasn’t tried in this religious war – that’s what it is, folks, plain and simple – is prayer.


Oh, we send our sympathetic prayers to victims’ families and survivors. But no clergy, to note, has prayed to God – Jehovah God (he has a name which the clergy used to use; just watch the movie “Drums Along the Mohawk” with Henry Fonda and Claudette Colbert – the preacher not only says it, he shouts it) to deliver us from our enemies.  As a matter of fact, the minor prophets of the Bible wrote that God would send the Chaldeans after the unfaithful (technically, the Syrians) in the end of days.


The Muslims shouldn’t feel too smug about that, even though they believe they’re the messengers of Allah. According to the Bible, while He’s angry with those who have turned from His way and finds the Chaldeans useful, He’s going to fix them too for worshipping another god.


Our security is only human and we’re quickly being outnumbered. Apparently, it hasn’t occurred to anyone to ask God for His help.  Really, God is so angry with us that we’d be better of praying to His Son, Jesus.


Prayer is problematic for the secular, for they would have to search their souls for the answer and they would find that they have a good deal to atone for. We don’t believe in blaming the victim, nor does the New Testament sanction eye-for-an-eye justice or the slaughter of innocent children (their parents are another matter altogether).  We are not innocent in God’s eyes, though, and He’s not going to help a people who don’t generally go to church and, in fact, disdain the practice as a waste of valuable time.


Since the 1960s we’ve done everything possible to offend him. The Bible says that women shouldn’t wear men’s clothes (guilty as charged).  Women’s clothing has gotten skimpier and skimpier, while men are sporting pocketbooks and man-buns.  God is so opposed to homosexuality that He sent an asteroid crashing down to Earth to rain fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah.


What is our answer to God’s view of homosexuality (and adultery, pornography, prostitution, and idol worship – otherwise known as multicultural diversity)? He’s so “insensitive.”  Those who’ve read the Bible are horrified by God’s violence.  Doesn’t bother Him in the least.  He’s God and who do we think we are criticizing Him.  He created us, not the other way around.


The emptier our churches become, the emptier our lives become. Not that our society would notice.  We have 24/7 cable, I-phones, computers, SUVs, vacation homes, landscapers and nannies to finish our every chore.  Our jobs generally don’t require much, if any, physical labor and when we get home, we can just plop on our couches and vegetate.


We’re also amazingly connected to one another. People are so attached to their I-phones that in the future, humans will probably have some sort of USB hub surgically implanted so that they can literally use their I-phones hands-free.  Just say the word, and a Google screen will appear before our eyes.  Say the search word and you’re done; start reading.


The Bible says that God stopped talking to Man eons ago – or was it that we stopped hearing him because the fat around our brains had grown so dense that we could no longer hear Him; just our own voices.


“Go home and rethink your life,” Obi-Wan Kenobi told a bar patron in “The Attack of the Clones.” Good idea.  Nobody’s condoning Muslim violence or insurrection.  While I’m a teetotaler myself, everyone else need not give up alcohol altogether (except adults when they drive and minors no matter where they are).  No one should have to fear being slaughtered like a sheep just because they want to have a glass of wine or beer.


Nor should women have to wear shrouds. But it would be nice if they did a better job of covering up their lady parts.  Nothing in Heaven or Earth or Undersea will ever persuade some young women not to wear mini-skirts that reveal everything “down to Florida,” as Carrie Fisher described the metal bikini she had to wear in Return of the Jedi.  But even just a smidgeon of modesty would go a long way in ameliorating God.


Please God. Not the Muslims.  They don’t deserve any special deference for murderous piety.  The only reason their women wear the hijab is because their menfolk would beat them to death.  Girls are frequently mutilated in the Middle East and are not allowed to get a proper education.


Think this is only about a relatively small number of fanatics? Think again.  Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of all this jihadism, is a strictly conservative Muslim country.  When our military was still based there, the female soldiers would go to parties in the cities when they were off-duty, scantily clad and flirting with the wealthy, male party-goers.


The local religious police were so upset that they complained to the Army post and the women had to be confined to base unless they could promise that they would abide by the local dress code. They weren’t even allowed to drive in-country.  Women aren’t allowed to drive, divorce or be seen with any man not related to them.  They’re really not supposed to go outdoors at all, but in this matter, the Kingdom has become somewhat more liberalized.


Nearly every Muslim country that had a secularized, Westernized culture has been destroyed by the religious fanatics. We’re talking about Muslim countries.  Beirut was considered the Paris of the Mediterranean.  By the end of the Seventies, the city was in shambles.  Since those days, it has been rebuilt.  But it features very few, if any, resort hotels for Westerners.


Saudi Arabia’s monarchy welcomes Westerners. In particular, it welcomes their business.   Saudi Arabia is rather harder on terrorists than other Islamic nations.  Jordan, too, is still a Westernized, secular nation, with an English-speaking, English and American-educated monarch.  King Abdullah is said to welcome the fight against radical Jihadism.


The Diversity Doctrine simply isn’t going to work with the Islamists. They want war.  They live for war.  They hate us.  They hate our culture.  They hate (with a passion) our bikini-clad, hip-hugging, short-short-sporting females.  They hate Judaism (for rejecting God) and Christianity (for letting Jesus down).  They believe the only way to ensure compliance is through fear and – yes – terror.  They’re willing to terrorize even their own people.


Are all the Muslims terror-minded? Or terrified.  Probably the latter.  The peaceful hope to persuade us to “cross the bridge” and convert before it’s too late for us.  Given last night’s attack, it’s not hard to imagine in the future, given a Muslim majority in London – they have a Muslim mayor right now – that London’s famous pubs and taverns will be shut down; for “security purposes,” of course.  London’s East End will go dark.  England’s “culture” will vanish and along with it, tourism.  The monarchy will be abolished and Christians will be executed for resisting Islam.  Those who refuse to submit (that’s the definition of Islam) will either pay the jizya, the Muslim tax, or be jailed.  Or beheaded.


Converts will be expect to use the right hand to eat, touch and present gifts. As in much of Asia and the Middle East, the left is generally regarded as unclean, as it is used for unclean activities (i.e., going to the bathroom.)

Middle Easterners often greet each other with a number of ritual phrases and fixed responses. Ancient custom governs these interactions. To Western eyes, profuse greetings, inquiries about health and well-being often take up inordinate amounts of time but it is important in establishing friendly relations. Remember, however, it is insulting to ask about a Muslim’s wife or another female family member.

Eye contact during discussions–often long and direct–is important. Staring is not necessarily rude (except gazing at women).

Be aware of appearing to be in a hurry when you are among Arabs. For example, during a business appointment or social visit with an Arab, do not look at your watch or otherwise act as if you have little time to talk. Arabs can be very offended by this. Time is much less rigidly scheduled in Arab countries than in western countries.

Pointing your finger or a pen at anyone while speaking, or beckon anyone with your finger. It is considered a threat, and only animals are treated in this manner. Harrison Ford, take note.

Take care when sitting. Avoid stretching legs in front of or sitting up higher than others, sitting with the left hand behind the back, or positioning oneself so the shadows fall upon half of one’s body.

Avoid putting feet on tables or furniture. Show respect. Refrain from leaning against walls, slouching in chairs, and keeping hands in pockets. Keep from pointing with the feet. Do not show the soles of the feet, as they are the lowest and dirtiest part of the body.

Muslims worldwide in secular countries have shown a strong disinclination to assimilate. They are never going to accept our secular culture.  Ever.  There is never going to be a moment of unity.  The peaceful Muslims know they cannot assimilate, no matter how eager they might be to extend a friendly (male) hand.  The Islamists are like the Brown Shirts in 1930s Germany – they’ll kill anyone they regard as apostate.

What peaceful Muslims there are might have more respect for us if we at least followed our own religion(s) – Judaism and Christianity. We used to be a Christian nation and radical Muslims like Sayyid Qutb still hated us.  We’re too moderate, too liberal for their tastes.  Even back during World Wars I and II, they despised us.


The truth is, if you read the Old Testament, God hates us. Jesus loves us.  God, not so much.  That is, He hates apostates as much as the Muslims do.  The world “loathe” is used innumerable times in the Old Testament and He used a dirty word that meant “dung” in Hebrew to describe the idolaters, homosexuals, adulterers (and that means everyone who does it without benefit of marriage) and other Jews who failed in their faith.

Then along came Jesus, who intervened between an angry God and the people with whom He was furious. That angry God had – and still has – no problem with wiping out the unfaithful.  Revelations is filled with the warnings of what is to come.  Nor will Jesus be the meek, mild savior of old.  Revelations tells us he’ll have a new name and he’ll be just as angry and vengeful as His father.  Can you blame him?  Did he die on the cross only for us to let Him down?

There is always hope for the repentant. Only our society isn’t very humble.  We’re being led by a satanic-like “entertainment” industry that teaches us to mock and reject God.  America expelled God from school in 1962.  Nativity scenes and Christmas concerts have been banned.  Easter Sunday features a pagan custom in which children run one another down to grab the Easter Eggs out of the hands of toddlers.

If we won’t pray to God, then there’s only one other answer to our dilemma, one we don’t especially care for as a “free” nation.

Suppose you have a hornet’s nest near your children’s swing-set or sandbox. What do you do?  Do you remove it (legally, that is!!!)?  Or do you say, “Well, not all the hornets are violent.  Some of them are just worker-hornets (like worker-bees, only they have bigger stingers); they’re not looking to harm anyone.  They just one to live in peace and be left alone to gather whatever it is they gather.

“Let’s just look out for the ‘dangerous’ hornets, the ones that pose a danger to our kids. They’re really only a small percentage of the nest.  If we can catch them, the rest of the nest can live in peace.  Our children will learn to live in harmony with the hornets.  The idea of burning the nest (the most effective means of destroying a hornets’ nest) is so violent and cruel.  The hornets have just as much right to be here as we do.”

And so the multicultural diversity argument drones on.


Do you just wait to pick out the “dangerous” hornets? Or do you remove the entire nest (with the clear understanding that the disturbed hornets will rally and attack you, which is why people generally burn the nests once out of harm’s way)?


First, our society, our culture needs to “get right with God” again, as the saying goes. Our God, Jehovah, not Allah.  We need to clean up our act, reject the Kathy Gibbins of the world, the Katy Perrys, the Whoopi Goldbergs.  We need rework our wardrobes.  A little more modesty and a little less flesh would go a long way in gaining God’s good-will.  And a stronger mouthwash, to cleanse our tongues of our addiction to profanity might be nice.


A little more fear of God might make the terrorists a good deal less fearsome. Christianity is the best answer to Islamic radicalism.  If our own consciences are clean, then we owe them nothing.  Not that we owe them anything.  But we will not prevail.  We are as weak and degenerate as they claim.  That shouldn’t give them the right to murder us, although they believe it does.


However, if we go on blindly as we are, wearing rose-colored glasses about our licentious, libertine society, we’ll fare no better than Adam and Eve. The Islamic terrorists will come with their slaughtering knives and destroy us to the last man, woman and child.


And God will just shrug.

Published in: on June 4, 2017 at 3:23 pm  Leave a Comment  

Trump on Paris Climate Accord – I’m Only for Americans

“I wouldn’t bring up Paris if I were you – it’s poor salesmanship.” Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) to Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman) in Casablanca (1942)


Only for Americans

The midnight life in gay Paree

The Frenchman he would never see

It’s only for Americans

The prices in the smart cafe

The Frenchman he would never pay

The price that’s more is only for Americans from the U.S.A.


From “Only For Americans,” Irving Berlin, 1947


Pres. Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that the deal is off for the Paris Climate Accord, signed by former Pres. Obama in 2015 along with 195 other nations. Obama famously claimed he would suck up the excess ocean water from climate change like Superman.  But Trump said, “Non merci” to the expensive climate change pact that would cost Americans $100 per person every year until the end of this century.


Representing the United States, Obama pledged $3 billion per year. He vowed that paper manufacturing, cement production, and natural gas would be cut by up to 30 percent.  Steel, iron ore, and clean coal would be cut up to 80 percent, resulting in the loss of millions of jobs.


China, a major polluter, would not be required under the Paris Accord to cut emissions until the year 2030. Meanwhile, India will receive billions of dollars in climate change money just over the next few years.


According to the Copenhagen Consensus Center, the cost of the Paris Accord would be $1 to $2 trillion globally ever year, while the global temperature would only be lower by 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, far below the predicted 1.6 degree Fahrenheit reduction. By the end of this year, the temperature would only be lower by 0.057 degrees.


This deal is a massive redistribution of wealth that does next to nothing for the environment and only doles out United States tax money to other countries. Liberals claim that Trump is ignorant in matters of policy, especially climate change. However, his speech was spellbinding for its numerous details.

“I am fighting every day for the great people of this country,” he said. “Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate accord. But we will begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the U.S., its business, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.

“So we are getting out. But we will start to negotiate and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine.

“The Paris climate accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering an agreement that disadvantages the U.S., leaving American workers who I love and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs and lower wages and vastly diminished economic production. Thus, as of today, the U.S. will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord and the draconian and financial economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.

“This includes ending the implementation of the Nationally Determined Contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund, which is costing the U.S. a vast fortune

“Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need — believe me, this is not what we need — including automobile jobs, and the further decimation of vital American industries on which countless communities rely. They rely for so much, and we would be giving them so little.

“But [former] president cites an industry study that doesn’t count clean energy jobs or the cost of climate change.

According to this same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal — and I happen to love the coal miners — down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.

Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals. As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does — the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.

For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years — 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. There are many other examples. But the bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.

Further, while the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America — which it does, and the mines are starting to open up. We’re having a big opening in two weeks. Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places. A big opening of a brand-new mine. It’s unheard of. For many, many years, that hasn’t happened. They asked me if I’d go. I’m going to try.

Trump noted that he is the “president” of Pittsburgh, not Paris. Pittsburgh responded by vowing to honor the Paris Accord, much in the same way sanctuary cities have vowed to violate federal law regarding illegal immigration.


Meanwhile, the Left is marching around with “The End is Near Signs” and trying to frighten the general populace with dire warnings about climate change flooding from rising ocean levels, fiercer winters, hotter summers, melting icebergs in the Antarctic, and homeless polar bears.


They are in special effects overload slamming Trump for his decision to exit the Paris Accords. These human freaks of nature are an outgrowth of 1970s environmentalism which taught that humans are evil, selfish creatures who will destroy the planet.


Certainly there are illegal polluters, just as there are illegal immigrants. It would be nice if someone would catch the villain who dumps illegal chemicals into Post Brook in Pompton Lakes and boil him in his own oil or cleaning fluid or whatever it is with which he’s poisoning the brook.  They dig a hole in the ground some short distance from the bank and eventually the stuff comes out into the brook and bubbles its way downstream.


But to envision the world coming to an end because of human activity is utter nonsense. By human activity, the Liberals mean Industrial Capitalists, not the human pigs who throw trash along every highway and byway in the United States, throw shopping carts into lakes and ponds, and decorate every woodland trail and city street with fast-food bags, soda cans, cigarettes butts, and heroin packets.


Environmentalism is for the guys with the deep pockets whom the Liberals can regulate, fine and sue for billions of dollars, not the average slob who leaves in his wake a flotilla of trash and filth. Then, too, there are the collegial Snowflakes whose cafeterias are hovels of garbage.


Climate change? Give me a break.  You see that big, bright light up in the sky.  Well, don’t actually look at it directly.  But look it up on the Internet.  You’ll see videos of huge solar flares that bombard us with heat and radiation every day.  There’s your global warming.  That’s the reason the temperature goes up and down.  That’s the Sun’s job.  You can’t very well sue the Sun for doing what comes naturally.


The Liberals vomit hatred for Conservatives every single day. They’ve been doing for a century now.  This November is the 100th Anniversary of the Communist Revolution in Russia.  Vladimir Lenin was much like Kathy Griffin, foul-mouthed and venomous.  He based the revolution on the philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.


Perhaps it’s time to revisit them, with additional commentary from laissez-fairerepublican.com on Marxist the United States itself has become:


  1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

The courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868) to give the government far more “eminent domain” power than was originally intended, Under the rubric of “eminent domain” and various zoning regulations, land use regulations by the Bureau of Land Management property taxes, and “environmental” excuses, private property rights have become very diluted and private property in land, vehicles, and other forms are seized almost every day in this country under the “forfeiture” provisions of the RICO statutes.


  1. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.


The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913 (which some scholars maintain was never properly ratified), and various State income taxes, established this major Marxist coup in the United States many decades ago.  These taxes continue to drain the life-blood out of the American economy and greatly reduce the accumulation of desperately needed capital for future growth, business starts, job creation, and salary increases.

  1. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.


Another Marxian attack on private property rights is in the form of Federal & State estate taxes and other inheritance taxes, which have abolished or at least greatly diluted the right of private property owners to determine the disposition and distribution of their estates upon their death.  Instead, government bureaucrats get their greedy hands involved.


  1. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.


We call it government seizures, tax liens, “forfeiture” Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. [Belle’s Blog doesn’t agree that the imprisonment of Islamic or Marxist terrorists constitutes a loss of freedom or an acceptance of Marxist ideals. But in the event of a full-blown insurrection in which America became a de facto communist state, patriotic Americans could be charged with “terrorism” for defending their homeland and their freedom.]


  1. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.


The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a “national bank” and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States.   This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective.   Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation.

  1. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

In the United States, communication and transportation are controlled and regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Department of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission (established by Congress in 1887), and the Federal Aviation Administration as well as Executive orders 11490, 10999 — not to mention various state bureaucracies and regulations. There is also the federal postal monopoly, AMTRAK and CONRAIL — outright socialist (government-owned) enterprises.   Instead of free-market private enterprise in these important industries, these fields in America are semi-cartelized through the government’s regulatory-industrial complex.

  1. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.


While the U.S. does not have vast “collective farms” (which failed so miserably in the Soviet Union), we nevertheless do have a significant degree of government involvement in agriculture in the form of price support subsidies and acreage allotments and land-use controls.   The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

  1. Equal obligation of all to work.  Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and the Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920’s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft. [In Communist countries, particularly the Soviet Union, it was against the law not to work.]


  1. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.


We call it the Planning Reorganization Act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136.

  1. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.


People are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education.”

The Liberals hate him because they are scared to death of him. He is a threat to their existence.  He’s been putting his head down and just boring straight ahead to eliminate their bureaucratic existence.  Trump is creating his own “climate change” in Washington, D.C.  Bureaucrats and lobbyists for the Left are on his extinction list, and these Democrat Dinosaur fear for their political lives.


California Gov. Jerry Brown is leading the climate change charge along with former Vice President Al Gore. If Jerry Brown is for something, you know it’s bad.   Gore was caught in a moment of seizure upon learning the news that the United States would be exiting the Paris Accord.


But for all their alarums about how “children will die!” Trump is forging ahead with making America great again. Thus the Liberal clamor to try to drown him out before he gains even more popularity for his America First stances.  A victory for Trump in climate change could cost the Democrats in next year’s Congressional elections.  They must put forth every effort to turn Trump from a champion into a chump.


Every roar you hear from a Liberal about Trump is actually a whimper, every shout a sob, and every insult a cry of desperation not for global demise but for the loss of planetary plenary. Trump knows the difference between global environmental protection and global wealth redistribution.


And so do we.




Published in: on June 2, 2017 at 4:40 pm  Leave a Comment  

Heading Up the Anti-Trump Campaign

First, the Media posted a fake news story about First Lady Melania Trump “brushing away” her husband’s hand in a fit of pique. When the GIF clip finally surfaced, what the video showed was the First Lady lifting her hand to brush her hair out of her face as they descended the stairway onto the tarmac, just as Trump was reaching for her hand.

While the truth lay dormant for as long as possible, the Media had a field day.

Then there was the covfefe nonsense over which the Media and Hollywood stars are gloating, even though there’s nothing to the story at all. Trump was simply trying to type “coverage” at the end of his sentence, he made a typo and when he tried to correct it, Twitter’s correction went kerflooey and kept repeating the typo and the correction – f e f e.

Another non-story that had the Left accusing Trump of all sorts of nonsense, from suffering a stroke to speaking in tongues.

But the worst, which has been hidden behind Handgate and Covfefe Syndrome, is D-List “comedienne” Kathy Griffin posing with a grisly mock-up of the President’s head, suggesting that Trump should be beheaded for threatening to remove the United States from the Paris Climate Accord and for “discriminating” against women.

Why Griffin wasn’t immediately arrested by the Secret Service is a mystery. There is word on Breitbart.com that the Secret Service has opened an investigation into the incident. She hasn’t been arrested (yet) but CNN fired her for the horrific posting. Such a backlash arose even from the Left over her criminally tactless photo that she was forced to issue a cringing apology. She is a pariah even in the over-the-top, under-the-radar, pushing-every-button Celebrity universe.

Barron Trump, President Donald Trump’s 11-year-old son, reportedly “panicked” and became distressed after seeing Kathy Griffin’s now-infamous “beheading” photograph because he didn’t know who Griffin was or understand the context of the photo.

According to Breitbart.com, TMZ reported that Trump’s youngest son was watching television Tuesday when he saw the image of Griffin holding a fake, bloody decapitated head meant to resemble the president’s head.

Sources told the gossip outlet that Barron “panicked” and began calling for his mother, First Lady Melania Trump.

“He’s 11. He doesn’t know who Kathy Griffin is and the head she was holding resembled his dad,” the source told TMZ.

The photo of Griffin holding up Trump’s severed head, taken during a photo shoot with L.A.-based artist Tyler Shields, was first published Tuesday morning by TMZ and sparked a firestorm online, with backlash coming from both sides of the political aisle and thousands of people calling for a boycott of Griffin’s national comedy tour.

While the Left can’t very well support Griffin’s reprehensible photography, they are attacking the President’s 11 year-old son for having a panic attack over the bloody picture of his father’s head. They can’t imagine why he’s so upset. Can’t he tell the difference between reality and “fantasy”?

Is this an admission on the part of Leftist Hollywood that they’ve so desensitized children to violence that no child should be horrified at seeing a representation of their father being beheaded? Kids see that stuff all the time, don’t they? In the new Netflix series, “The Last Kingdom” about the life of Alfred the Great, a Viking shows up on the castle doorstep holding the head of young Alfred’s brother. By the way, it’s a great series, although probably not for children.

The Left would argue that children in 862 A.D. England saw such things all the time and modern children see it in the movies and on television, so that must make poor Barron Trump a wimp. Maybe they’re just preparing us for the real thing when we finally discover that there’s no such thing as the War on Terror; terror being just a method, it’s the goal of the particular terrorists that poses the problem to Western civilization – a worldwide caliphate.

Maybe Barron’s “mommy” doesn’t want to let sonny watch violent movies. That’s what the Left would say, and they ought to know because they’re the ones producing this garbage. As far as they’re concerned, at age 11 he should be embracing the horror movie cult, not cringing in fear at it. That’s their target audience.   In a subversive counter-culture, desensitizing the young to sex, drugs, rock n’roll, and horror movies is the ultimate goal. The younger the better. Eleven is the new thirteen. Why do you think school districts have moved 5th graders into the middle schools?

In short, the Left wants to make Barron out to be a sissy.

Nothing personal, there, Barron, the Left seems to be saying. All in good fun (and bad taste), don’t you know? Still, CNN did fire the debauched Griffin and it was high time. Her trademark is the lowest form of humor – profanity, insults, “dishing the dirt” on other celebrities. I watched her – once.

The good news is that the Left has finally been caught in its own petard. Breaching the wall of decency, they went just too far this time. No apology can atone for it, no excuses can be made for it, and no contrition should be accepted. We should push back on this all the way to condemning partisan violence, raising our cultural standards again, and returning to more civilized discourse that recognizes both sides of any issue.

Published in: on June 1, 2017 at 3:33 pm  Leave a Comment  

Trump’s Covfefe Conundrum

All of Washington is a-twitter over Pres. Donald Trump’s seemingly indecipherable Twitter message, apparently sent out in the middle of the night.


“Despite the negative press covfefe”


I was in the midst of hunting down my new adopted cat, Molly, who burst out of my back door within five minutes of entering my house – says a lot about my housekeeping – when I heard about this latest fandango.


“Despite the constant negative press covfefe…” I wrote the word down intending to decipher.  But first I had to hunt down my missing cat.  She’s in a thicket on the property next door.  She’s plenty hungry, eating a large can of tuna, a can of wet cat food, and a snack bag filled with ham pieces.


So, I’ll get to her later.


Once I sat down to solve this enigma (I love cryptography), I saw the answer immediately. Just by the content and structure of his sentence it was obvious he was trying to write “coverage.”


But the president hit a wrong key and as all of us have found when trying to correct something on Facebook, Twitter or on an IPhone, correcting our mistakes is not an easy task. The cursor has a tendency to back over too many letters – and then it types out too many letters (i.e., fefe) until you finally give up in exasperation.


That’s all there is to it. No big mystery.  It’s something that’s happened to all of us.  So we can all calm down now.  Trump wasn’t tweeting in tongues.  He didn’t have a stroke.  He wasn’t suffering from sleep deprivation.  His marbles are all there, and then some.


He just made a typo that refused to correct itself and wound up getting heaps of negative press coverage.




Published in: on June 1, 2017 at 12:00 pm  Leave a Comment  

NJ Supreme Court Steamrolls Suburbs into Creating Even More Affordable Housing

The other day, as I was typing out a recent blog, I heard a familiar rumble – two rumbles actually – a little more distant than usual, but still audible and ominous. Another two sections of Federal Hill in Bloomingdale had been blown into oblivion.


Bloomingdale and the Tillcon Quarry are in a race against time. In January of this year, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of expanding the Affordable Housing mandate.  But a new foe has arisen in the languid New Jersey Assembly:  Republican Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi (R-River Vale).  Schepisi has either sponsored or co-sponsored no less than 11 pieces of legislation to beat back the assault on New Jersey suburbs.


We are facing the equivalent of housing Armageddon.  A non-profit entity with ties to developers, The Fair Share Housing Center, is attempting to force towns across the state to build 280,000 affordable housing units throughout New Jersey in the next nine years.

Residents in towns across the state, Democrat and Republican alike, feel as if they have a proverbial gun to their head.  They are being forced to enter into settlements that could be disastrous to their communities as a result of lawsuits brought by this non-profit.  They are spending money they don’t have to fight unreasonable court-mandated obligations. This is an unwavering threat to taxpayers who can’t afford already nation-high property taxes.


We cannot let the courts get away with allowing a non-profit that has no constitutional power to force towns into building what they don’t need. It is also unfathomable that the court would legislate what is best for individual communities. If the Fair Share Housing Center gets its way, the state will be unrecognizable and the change will be irreversible.  If allowed to stand, these mandates can raise property taxes and destroy many other benefits we have come to enjoy in the already most densely populated state as well as create serious social services and educational problems.


A special giveaway to developers allows New Jersey to be forced to build approximately 1.4 million homes – a minimum 2,500 per community; a true social engineering disaster that most don’t want and did not ask for.  The assemblywoman has introduced two bills to the New Jersey Legislature giving it time to stop the mad drive to erase local control of our communities, raise our property taxes even higher and change the face of our communities forever.

The suburbs and your town are being squeezed head to toe and although he is Republican, Gov. Chris Christie is no ally in this fight.  He is at the vanguard of a regionalization plan that would wipe out our local identities and severely hamper our already struggling municipal services.


As reported on North Jersey.com on Jan. 18, 2017: In a decision that could reshape hundreds of communities, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday  [the day of publication] that municipalities must allow the development of affordable housing for poor and middle-class families whose needs were ignored for more than 16 years.


The state’s top court voted 6-0 to reject arguments advanced by several towns, Gov. Christie’s administration and the League of Municipalities, who said local governments faced no legal requirement to provide affordable housing for poor and middle-class families during a period spanning from 1999 to 2015.


The ruling — and dozens of recent settlements negotiated separately by towns — are likely to spur the development of tens of thousands of affordable housing units in New Jersey over the next decade. But it is unclear exactly how many. Estimates vary widely and the Supreme Court did not settle that issue on Wednesday.


The Fair Share Housing Center, a nonprofit that argued on behalf of poor and middle-class families, said towns would have been able to avoid up to 60 percent of their affordable housing obligations over the next decade if the court had ruled the other way, leading to more racially and economically-segregated communities.


“This ruling means that thousands of lower-income and minority families will be given the opportunity to live in safe neighborhoods, send their children to good schools and work at jobs where they live instead of traveling hours commuting each day,” said Colandus Francis, chairman of Fair Share Housing Center’s board and an official with the Camden chapter of the NAACP.


Michael Cerra, assistant executive director of the League of Municipalities, said the ruling raised more questions than answers and would generate more litigation in the lower courts as experts try to decipher how many affordable housing units must now be built. But the justices also attempted to “forge a compromise” on Wednesday, he said, because they rejected some arguments from the Fair Share Housing Center and, as a result, municipalities’ obligations will not increase as much as some housing advocates wanted.


In a decision written by Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, the high court once again reaffirmed its commitment to a series of landmark housing rulings in the Mount Laurel cases that date to 1975. The New Jersey justices for decades have said that the state’s poorest residents have a right to affordable housing opportunities in their communities and that towns must allow a reasonable level of development.


Enforcing the court’s housing decisions, however, has been a haphazard process. Suburban towns have resisted the Mount Laurel rulings over decades of follow-up litigation. The state Council on Affordable Housing, or COAH, which was created to oversee the program statewide in 1985, has been famously broken for years and stopped issuing rules in 1999.



The Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the delays had gone on too long; it ordered towns to sidestep COAH and go directly to trial court judges to settle affordable housing disputes.


But then the question became what to do about housing needs that went unfulfilled from 1999 to 2015, the period during which COAH was paralyzed. LaVecchia wrote that the court would “waste no time” settling that question. The state constitution requires municipalities to provide affordable housing for the “gap period,” she wrote.


In effect, the state Supreme Court made their ruling retroactive, a controversial move.


“The Mount Laurel constitutional affordable housing obligation did not go away,” LaVecchia wrote.


“Attending to that need is part of the shared responsibility of municipalities,” she added later.”


In an extreme liberal interpretation of the state’s constitution, Northjersey.com quoted the judge as saying, “We hold that towns are constitutionally obligated to provide a realistic opportunity for their fair share of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households formed during the gap period and presently existing in New Jersey.”


Although Christie opposes the Mount Laurel mandates, the four justices he has appointed — Anne Patterson, Faustino Fernandez-Vina, Lee Solomon and Walter Timpone — all joined LaVecchia’’s opinion, as did Justice Barry Albin. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner did not participate in the case.


Christie was not involved directly, but the Attorney General’s Office had filed a brief concurring with one town, Barnegat, whose attorney argued that it had no obligation to provide affordable housing for the gap period. A spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office declined to comment Wednesday.


One of the central questions before the Supreme Court was a technical one: Which legal term should be used when calculating a town’s unfulfilled affordable housing obligations from 1999 to 2015?


The state’s Fair Housing Act of 1985 orders municipalities to consider “present need” and “prospective need.”


Attorneys for the Fair Share Housing Center had urged the court to rule for “prospective need.”  That would lead to thousands more units being built, they said. But the justices went with “present need,” and they redefined that term to include the housing obligations that stacked up from 1999 to 2015, “a period of time affecting almost a generation of New Jersey citizens,” LaVecchia wrote.


Kevin Walsh, the lead attorney for the Fair Share Housing Center, said the ruling was nevertheless a breakthrough.


“This decision clears away one of the main obstacles remaining in the fight for fair housing in New Jersey,” Walsh said. “The towns who [sic] were fighting in court are outside the mainstream and now know that they will not be rewarded for further obstruction and delay.”


Staci Berger, president of the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey, said state residents have been buffeted by a recession, record foreclosure rates and Superstorm Sandy.


“Our hardworking families, seniors and people with disabilities have struggled to find homes they could afford during this time,” she said. “New Jerseyans and their needs did not simply disappear during the gap period, and as the court ruled, they cannot be ignored.”


Cerra said the justices’ ruling “doesn’t really provide finality.”  Experts will now go back and forth in the lower courts debating how to calculate towns’ housing obligations, he predicted. Out of 565 municipalities in the state, 150 to 200 have yet to resolve what level of affordable housing they will be providing over the next decade, Cerra said.


“The ruling provides little guidance and will likely result in additional property tax resources being expended,” said Michael Darcy, the League of Municipalities’ executive director. “We again call upon the administration and legislature to craft long-overdue reforms and promulgate a reasonable, rational state housing policy.”


The state justices said that from now on, municipalities calculating their “present need” must account for “overcrowded and deficient housing units,” as well as “an analytic component that addresses the affordable housing need of low- and moderate-income households created since 1999.”


Households that were low- or moderate-income from 1999 to 2015 must still be in that income bracket presently and must still be located in New Jersey in order to count, the court said. Officials should not factor in deceased people or double-count units that already have been deemed “deficient,” LaVecchia added. As before, municipalities also must continue to factor in their “prospective need,” which estimates future demand for affordable housing.


Whether to provide zoning for affordable housing, and how much, are issues that have divided the state for years, often pitting Democrats against Republicans. Some wealthy suburban towns and rural municipalities warn that the court’s mandates would lead to more sprawl and higher property taxes.


“This court-ordered overdevelopment will change the landscape of many communities,” said Assemblyman Parker Space, (R-Warren). “It will decimate open space while forcing taxpayers to pay for additional services to handle the increase in population. Property taxes will skyrocket.”


Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi, R-River Vale, criticized the court and said “the failure of the legislature to address the social engineering of the court should not result in changing communities forever.”


“This ruling clearly creates potential challenges for municipalities who already built out much of their developable land over the last 16 years,” said Joseph DeCotiis, an attorney at the DeCotiis, FitzPatrick, Cole and Giblin law firm, which represented Brick Township. “Additionally, many developers who already have planned market-rate housing on properties in many of these municipalities may be forced to reconfigure those designs to meet new requirements at their own cost.”


Although several bills have been introduced in recent years, New Jersey lawmakers have not advanced any legislation on affordable housing matters since a failed attempt at reform in early 2011. Christie for years has shown no interest in fixing the program or enforcing the state’s affordable housing laws. But the Supreme Court said they are welcome to try again.


“We recognize, as we have before, that the legislature is not foreclosed from considering alternative methods for calculating and assigning a municipal fair share of affordable housing, and to that end, we welcome legislative attention to this important social and economic constitutional matter,” LaVecchia wrote.


The Supreme Court upheld a ruling issued last summer by the state Appellate Division. Although that decision was much more favorable to towns seeking to tamp down their housing quotas, the justices drastically modified it in a way that will ramp up housing obligations.


Fair Share Housing Development FSHD was founded in 1986 by civil rights activists in response to the landmark Mount Laurel Doctrine, which prohibits towns from shutting out the poor through exclusionary zoning and requires each New Jersey municipality to plan, zone and take the necessary affirmative measures to provide realistic housing opportunities for its “fair share” of the regional need for affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income households, the elderly and disabled.

The Mount Laurel Doctrine has led to the development of over 60,000 affordable housing units outside New Jersey’s racially and economically-segregated urban centers.


According to its website, the Fair Share Housing Center “fights to defend the rights of New Jersey’s poor by monitoring, enforcing and expanding the Mount Laurel Doctrine.”


Fair Share Housing Development (FSHD) is a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit corporation with offices in Mount Laurel and Camden, N.J.  The organization was founded by Peter J. O’Connor in 1986 to develop, own and manage affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families, seniors and the disabled in Burlington, Camden and Gloucester counties.


FSHD and its predecessor organizations, the nonprofit housing programs of the Carpenters Union of South Jersey, have three decades of experience in developing and managing affordable rental housing. FSHD currently manages 656 rental units in five affordable housing complexes in southern New Jersey with over 2,000 tenants.


In 2000-2004, FSHD developed Ethel R. Lawrence Homes, Phases I & II (140 units), Mount Laurel Township, Burlington County. Evans-Francis Estates at Short Hills Farm, Cherry Hill Township, Camden County (54 units) was planned for development in 2010, but is currently in litigation with the Township’s Planning Board regarding development approvals.


In addition, Fair Share Housing Development is slated to develop another five affordable housing developments in suburban New Jersey in the next several years, including a 24-unit single-family development for families in Mount Laurel; a 36-unit addition to Ethel Lawrence Homes; a 184-unit senior/assisted-living development, also in Mount Laurel; a 76-unit development for the elderly in Cherry Hill at the site of the former Garden State Racetrack; and a 100-unit family rental development in Woolwich Township.


FSHD’s work receives crucial support from and lends support to several other organizations. FSHD’s most longstanding partner, the Fair Share Housing Center, was founded in 1975 and continues to support the work of FSHD by providing legal and technical expertise and, when needed, the ability to litigate to circumvent the many obstacles and overcome the resistance that affordable housing has elicited in suburban communities.


FSHD also plays an important role in the City of Camden and in the region surrounding Camden. Inside Camden, FSHD serves the role of a traditional community development corporation, and its employees there participate in civic activities with other organizations.


FSHD Executive Director Peter O’Connor himself was long involved with other organizations in Camden and he served in a volunteer capacity for more than a decade as the Chairman of the Holy Name of Camden, a neighborhood-based organization that includes a church, school, law office, medical clinic and family counseling program. He was also the Chairman of the Catholic Camden Diocese’s Housing Development Corporation, which develops primarily senior affordable housing in the six most southern counties of New Jersey.


FSHD has a very visible presence in the region and is a strong voice in support of affordable housing development outside of areas of entrenched poverty. Several other for-profit and nonprofit entities are involved in developing affordable housing in suburban South Jersey, but no other entity has FSHD’s record or commitment to the development of affordable housing that promotes regional mobility for residents of the City of Camden and strives to reach very low-income households.


Peter J. O’Connor, who died in 1988, long fought for social justice. O’Connor arrived in Southern New Jersey following his graduation from Georgetown University Law Center. His work as a Legal Services attorney involved law reform efforts in landlord-tenant, consumer, housing, mental health, and state/federal civil rights law.


As the lead counsel in the Camden Coalition litigation in 1970 to 1972, O’Connor challenged the City of Camden’s “urban revitalization” and highway construction efforts that caused massive displacement of Camden residents. O’Connor’s efforts gave rise to a White House campaign spearheaded by Vice President Spiro Agnew to limit the activities of federally-funded Legal Service programs.


In May 1971, O’Connor and two other Legal Services attorneys, Carl S. Bisgaier and Ken Meiser, filed suit on behalf of individual plaintiffs and the NAACP to challenge suburban Mount Laurel Township’s refusal to permit affordable housing in Mount Laurel. That case, Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel, was appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1975, and again in 1983, and led to the first requirement in the nation that all municipalities provide for their fair share of the region’s need for affordable housing.


In 1985, the Legislature passed the Fair Housing Act, which created the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing, an executive agency empowered to ensure compliance by New Jersey municipalities with their Mount Laurel obligations. Since COAH’s creation, over 59,000 units of affordable housing have been constructed in New Jersey.


Over four decades after he started working in South Jersey, O’Connor’s interests in urban deterioration, affordable housing, and regional equity continued . From 1978 to 1980, O’Connor spearheaded the construction of the 402-unit Northgate II development in North Camden, a project that formed part of the settlement of Camden Coalition lawsuit. The complex has on-site management, maintenance and security staff and also provides social and recreational services.


In 1983, O’Connor worked in suburban Deptford Township developing New Sharon Woods, a 50-unit affordable housing development for families. In 1986, O’Connor developed Pennsville Towers, a 100-unit affordable housing project for seniors. He also has worked on rehabilitating houses in North Camden.


In 1995, O’Connor completed a historic rehabilitation project he envisioned in the Cooper Plaza Neighborhood of Camden. The 64-unit project, Cooper Plaza Historic Homes, adjoins Cooper Hospital and has received national and statewide attention in view of the successful historic rehabilitation of it and ongoing management and stabilizing effect in the area.


Most recently, O’Connor’s work focused on advocating for and constructing long-awaited affordable housing for moderate-income, low-income, and very-poor families and seniors in Mount Laurel and Cherry Hill. In Mount Laurel, Fair Share Housing Development built and manages Ethel R. Lawrence Homes, a 140-unit rental development that is named in honor of the lead individual plaintiff in the landmark Mount Laurel litigation.


That 62-acre development, which received the Governor’s Housing Excellence Award in 2001, represents the culmination of three decades of work to construct truly affordable housing in a municipality whose resistance to it has become infamous. Social, educational, and recreational services are provided to the residents of the development, which include families making from 10- to 80-percent of median income, a range of affordability with a depth and breadth previously unknown to suburban New Jersey.


On March 29, 2006, the court approved an agreement with Mount Laurel Township whereby the Township agreed to provide pre-development funds and capital grants to assist Fair Share Housing Development in the development of an Outdoor Recreation Area, Indoor Recreation Area and Education Center adjacent to Ethel R. Lawrence Homes.

Ethel R. Lawrence Homes, which opened in Winter 2000 and has received extensive local and national media attention, was dedicated in Summer 2002. Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, spoke at the Dedication. In a demonstration of the significance of the project from a civil rights standpoint, the names of the 40 people who were killed during the Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) were read from the stage by the plaintiffs, ending with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


Fair Share Housing Development is slated to develop another four affordable housing developments in suburban New Jersey in the next several years, including, a 24-unit single family development for families in Mount Laurel, a 184-unit senior/assisted living development in Mount Laurel, a 76-unit development for the elderly in Cherry Hill, at the site of the former Garden State Racetrack and a 100-unit family rental development in Woolwich Township, the fastest growing municipality on the East Coast according to 2004 Census figures.


In addition to putting shovels in the dirt, O’Connor assisted the fight for fair housing rights in New Jersey courtrooms. As the founder and former Executive Director of Fair Share Housing Center, O’Connor served a s part of the team of FSHC lawyers representing the original Mount Laurel plaintiffs in litigation against Mount Laurel and Cherry Hill Townships which has forced those municipalities to provide for their fair share obligations.


O’Connor represented the plaintiffs in litigation against the Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency for its perpetuation of racial and economic segregation through the use of federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits, the first case of its kind in the nation; and against a corporation that attempted to redevelop the former Garden State Racetrack in Cherry Hill without providing any affordable housing on-site, a case on which the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2002 released a unanimous decision in favor of the plaintiffs after it took the case on interlocutory appeal directly from the trial court. Additionally, O’Connor succeeded in negotiating a settlement with Woolwich Township that will result in 100 units of housing for families, including very-low income families.


O’Connor’s legacy of development and advocacy interests continues to focus on reducing the concentration of poverty in the inner cities of New Jersey, fighting racial segregation in housing and public schools, and working to develop high quality affordable housing in a state with the second highest rental housing costs in the nation. NJ also remains one of the country’s more segregated states.


The effort of the Mount Laurel plaintiffs, O’Connor, and others to provide regional affordable housing opportunities is the subject of Our Town: Race, Housing and the Soul of Suburbia, by David L. Kirp, John P. Dwyer, Larry A. Rosenthal of the University of California at Berkeley.


O’Connor was also a professor at the Fordham University School of Law in the Bronx, N.Y. He graduated from Fordham in 1951 and from its law school in 1956. He earned a master’s degree in law from Harvard Law School in 1957.  Earlier he had been an assistant district attorney and chief of appeals in Queens County, from 1967 to 1970, and an assistant district attorney in Manhattan under District Attorney Frank Hogan, from 1957 to 1962.


At least, that’s how the social justice activist judges and attorneys saw it. The city of South Brunswick didn’t share FSHD’s “idealistic” vision of social engineering.


In an article in the The Observor on April 7, 2017, reporter Salvador Rizzo noted the seemier side of judicial activism:


Things are getting personal in the seemingly endless legal fight over how much affordable housing to build in New Jersey.


After South Brunswick lost a court case seeking to tamp down its affordable housing obligations, the township’s attorney, Jeffrey Surenian, filed court papers last week attacking the judge who issued the ruling.


The allegation is that former Superior Court Judge Douglas Wolfson had a conflict of interest because earlier in his career Wolfson represented and befriended a developer, Jack Morris of Edgewood Properties, who allegedly stood to benefit financially from Wolfson’s rulings last year calling for more affordable housing units to be built than some towns wanted.


Surenian added that Wolfson’s son worked at a law firm owned by Morris’s wife while the housing rulings were coming down, and that when the judge retired in December he went to work as general counsel at Edgewood Properties. The judge “brazenly violated” the judiciary’s core values, South Brunswick alleged in a March 28 court filing, asking that Wolfson’s housing rulings be vacated.


Attorneys on the other side of the issue called Surenian’s allegations a baseless attack from a lawyer who often loses affordable housing cases. Surenian regularly appears before state courts representing towns that in some form or another are seeking to dial down the amount of low-cost housing they are required to zone for. In recent years, Surenian has lost repeatedly at the trial courts and in the handful of cases that have reached the state Supreme Court.


The Fair Share Housing Center, a nonprofit that represents poor and middle class families in housing cases by designation of the courts, filed papers noting that Morris and Edgewood Properties had no involvement in the South Brunswick case.


“There is no rule or court decision in New Jersey that provides that a judge who is hearing a lawsuit involving Developers 1-5 must recuse from the lawsuit because the judge is friends with Developer 6,” Kevin Walsh, the lead attorney at Fair Share, argued in a court filing.


“A friendship with a developer does not preclude a judge from being involved in any lawsuits simply because other developers are involved,” Walsh wrote.


Walsh added that “Judge Wolfson’s career as an attorney who represented developers was known by all involved in the matter.”


Surenian argued that even if Edgewood Properties was not a party to the case, it nonetheless stood to benefit from Wolfson’s rulings since they would expand the opportunity for all developers to build low-cost homes in Middlesex County. But Surenian noted that Wolfson recused himself from hearing cases that involved Edgewood Properties directly.


Wolfson, who is married to U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson, said Friday he could not comment on specific cases he heard as a judge.


But he said “it is a matter of public record … that I disclosed to the court-appointed special masters and all counsel my relationship with Mr. Morris, and in fact recused myself from several cases in which he or any of his companies were adverse to either to the town or to any of the other potentially competing builder/intervenors who sought to gain a favorable rezoning through the litigation process.”


“Since my opinions in this case must speak for themselves, I can only urge you to read them yourself so as to gain a complete and unbiased understanding of what has actually transpired in this case since July of 2015, and to judge for yourself what the motivation is for this belated filing,” Wolfson added.


It’s not clear that South Brunswick would get a better outcome under a different judge. The state Supreme Court last year issued a major ruling settling some of the same affordable housing questions, and not in the township’s favor.


According to Assemblywoman Schepisi, who spoke at the North Jersey Regional Tea Party meeting recently, five days after Judge Wolfson stepped down, he joined the plaintiff’s legal team.


Schepisis describes the New Jersey legislature as “complacent.” They fear battling the racially-oriented Fair Share Housing Center  and Fair Share Housing Development.  Municipalities fear developer-remedy lawsuits.  Towns are caught in a trap in which they must either accept 100 percent affordable housing, which is unpopular with most voters, or accept it in increments at about a 1 to 5 ratio.


Developers are anxious to build market-rate housing. For the opportunity to build high-density housing, with a 50-year property tax break sweetener thrown in, they’ll set a side certain, small number of units to meet the affordable housing requirement.  However, the population increase in general sets the town back further on its affordable housing requirement, opening the town up to even more incursions by developers, zoning planners and their attorneys.


North Jersey Tea Party members wanted to know just exactly who the developers envision occupying the market-rate housing, when residents are fleeing the state. As native New Jerseyans are fleeing the Garden State, its high property taxes, and onerous business climate, Long Islanders are trying to flee the island.


The developers are targeting residents on Long Island who work in New York City and Millennials who would like to live in the City but can’t afford the unbelievable rents. I used to work for State Farm Insurance as an internal public affairs writer.  Long Island was my “beat.”  Workers there told me – some ten years ago now – that the middle class was being squeezed off the Island.


Eastern Long Island is the abode of the rich, famous and wealthy.  Western Long Island is increasingly the receptacle of the poverty and crime spreading out from the city.  With their poverty, these Section 8 and Affordable Housing residents and families bring crime, drugs, and lower property values, along with higher taxes for the social services they require, including special education.


There is no haven for the middle class on the northern and southern shores of Long Island:  the North Shore has long been the abode of Old Money (i.e., Theodore Roosevelt) and the South Shore has become the new Gold Coast.  Middle class and upper Middle Class residents and families have no place to go.  These are the residents – and their progeny – whom the developers are targeting.


Long Island’s middle class is basically squeezed into the center of the island, on either side of the county line. Housing is tight, increasingly more expensive and crowded.  Thanks to all those wealthy finance brokers and summer celebrities, Long Island’s cost of living is skyrocketing.


In the last 15 to 20 years, minorities from New York City have overwhelmed Nassau County are slowly encroaching on Suffolk County to the east. Uniondale (55.5% Black), (Westbury, 23% Black, 19% Hispanic) in central Nassau County are, or nearly are, minority-majority cities.


But in addition to the problems of crime, once you get out into Suffolk County, commuters are looking at a longer, more expensive trek into the city whether by car, train, or less likely, by bus.  The North and South Shores of Long Island are like Eastern Long Island, the abode of the wealthy.  The North Shore has historically been the seat of Old Money; the South Shore is wall-to-wall new mansions lined up cheek-by-by jowl along every inch of the shoreline and far inland.  Villages on Long Island are part of larger, incorporated townships, with new, sustainably narrow roads that are designed to discourage the use of automobiles in favor of mass transit.


Long Islanders are essentially city people.  They have no problem living in rental units in close proximity to one another.  They are also, as I noted, Democrats.  Eventually, between the very rich (by northern New Jersey standards) and the poor, the vote will be flipped.  What is left of Conservative Republicans will disappear by their target year of 2050.  Bergen County is already nearly totally blue.  I’m surprised you were able to win election in Bergen County.  But even they have woken up and realize their quiet lifestyle is in danger from such vulnerable towns as Paramus.


Thus, Long Islanders are turning their weary eyes to forested hills of New Jersey. Passaic County is well within the acceptable commuting distance of New York City.  Young Long Islanders, in particular, who have no desire (yet) to own a home or the time or money to maintain one, are eager to move into our unsightly, towering condos.  In Bergen, a high-rise tower is being planned for the center of Paramus, the assemblywoman told us.


Avalon Bay, just as an example, offers every amenity to the newly-transplanted Long Islander. Swimming pools, saunas, fine restaurants.  According to Assemblywoman Schepisi, the affordable housing dwellers are set off to one side and do not have such privileges as the use of the swimming pool.


Bloomingdale, where I grew up has been an early advocate of sustainable development.  Like nearly every other town in northern New Jersey, they officially signed on to the Sustainable Development creed in 2009. So has Riverdale, in Morris County.  Pompton Lakes, where I live, is on schedule to complete an even more ambitious plan for “affordable housing” along its main business route, Wanaque Avenue, by 2020.  Their plan is to build five-story rental apartment buildings along Wanaque Avenue, completely changing the nature of the town along the lines of Montclair.


Pompton Lakes also plans to narrow – not widen – but narrow Wanaque Avenue to follow the Sustainable Development plan of discouraging the use of automobiles.  Towns on Long Island have already redeveloped their business districts in this way and let me tell you, it’s a nightmare.


The residents of Bloomingdale woke up too late to the fact that their town was being remodeled.  The area where Avalon Bay is located used to be a shooting range and an illegal garbage dump.  The EPA used this fact to have the property condemned as an “urban blight zone” and then redesignate it for multiple dwellings.  Our friend, David, came up north from Texas to attend his daughter’s college graduation.


I had to honor of giving him a tour of an area he hasn’t seen much of since he graduated high school in 1973. He was horrified when he was Avalon Bay. When I warned him about “development” he thought I was talking about some houses along Union Avenue. I pointed skyward and then he saw the Monstrosity of Union Avenue – with more plans in the works for the now-demolished Federal Hill area.


Northern Passaic County district, has been a leafy haven for drug gangs.  Wanaque has had problems with MS-13 for going on 20 years.  They are at the hub of what has become known as the “Heroin Trail” running north from Pequannock, through Riverdale and on up into Ringwood and West Milford, where the meth factories are located.


The drug pedalers/peddlers (they make their runs on bicycles) board the northbound 197 up into Ringwood in the morning and return in the evening to make their “deliveries” all night long until the police shift change at 8 a.m.  I’ve seen them.  They leave markers or portkeys, just as the old Soviet spies used to do, to indicate where the customers can pick up their drugs.  The dealers hide their goods in take-out bags.  The customers pull up, make the exchange.  The dealer pedals off and the buyers take out the drugs and throw the fast food out the car window and drive off.


The assemblywoman made note of the Liberals’ hypocritical oversight of infrastructure problems, particularly water.  At a time when it is predicted that New Jersey will not have enough water for all its residents (no matter how many water towers they build), they advocate building affordable housing complexes that encourage even more use of water through air conditioning and swimming pools.


The Suburban Trends, our local newspaper, readily publishes the news about a critical overuse of water, yet they write nothing about the demand on water consumption these affordable housing units will create.


As for social services, our volunteer emergency responders are already overtasked.  I bought a police band radio to find out what was really going on in our area, because we certainly can’t depend upon our local newspaper (a bi-weekly) to tell us.  What I’ve discovered is that on emergency medical calls, it can take up to 20 minutes just to find a driver for the ambulance before they can respond to the emergency.  I have a 93 year-old mother.  I’ve told my brothers that, on the weekdays at least, don’t bother waiting for the ambulance – just go.


Illegal immigration is nothing new to our area – the illegals have been here for 20 to 30 years and in that time, the incidents in crime have gone up, especially at the stores on Route 23.  Criminals have held up the local Target store as well as our fast-food restaurants.  The incidents in stolen cars have also risen, as well as drug overdoses and suicide attempts.


The goal of “Sustainable Development” is an attempt to eliminate property ownership and force residents into communal living warehouses.  It is a decidedly Marxist goal.  In Russia and China, citizens do not own property.  They don’t even own the units they live in; their heirs cannot inherit these units.  They are returned to the state.


I live in a condo myself, one that was converted from a garden apartment in the 1980s.  I could not afford the price of a house or the maintenance of one.  As I’m single with no children, I’m content.  But I can tell anyone who is not living this lifestyle, it’s not exactly the propaganda brochure the Left paints.  For one thing, Pompton Lakes’ taxes are so exorbitant, thanks to the school tax that I pay almost as much in taxes as my companion who lives in a house with property in Pompton Plains across the highway.


We need to give this issue as much publicity as possible.  I don’t have a problem with people who want to live in a city or are nervous about owning a house.  This is America; you should live where you want to.  However, I don’t believe developers have an inalienable right to simply buy up a town and place high-density multiple dwellings in the midst of a quiet suburb filled with people who moved to that suburb precisely because they did NOT want to live in a city, big, small or otherwise.


More and more suburbanites are waking up to the dangers that Affordable Housing poses. Our way of life is under attack. We need to send a message to the social activist Judge LaVecchia that we thank her for her sneering “permission” to try to turn back the Affordable Housing mandate.  The Legislature, however, is not under any mandate to affirm her grossly unconstitutional reading of the state constitution and will her activism into reality.


She can accuse any of us or all of us of racism. But we can counter with a more pernicious accusation:  communism.


It’s her way or the highway? Her imposing judgment and Avalon Bay are precisely what Communism looks like.



Published in: on May 26, 2017 at 4:01 pm  Leave a Comment  

The End of Fox News As We Knew It

Since Rupert Murdoch’s Liberal sons took over Fox News Network, its programming has leaned so far to the Left that viewers have been dropping off. The most recent ratings put the network at number 3 in its demographic.  For seventeen years, Fox was the number one news network in that demographic and number two overall among news stations.


The end began months ago. More and more, Liberal voices were taking over.  First, the network fired Glenn Beck.  They replaced it with The Five.  Greta Van Sustern left to be replaced by Tucker Carlson.  Carlson claims to be a Conservative.  But his performance in debates with Liberals and Democrats is weak and ineffective.  The Liberals basically walk all over him.


Carlson has now taken over Bill O’Reilly’s old spot. I had to check Fox News’ website to see who’s on because I stopped watching Fox News around the time of the inauguration.  I’ll watch Fox if there’s a genuine news story on, like the Manchester Massacre.  But for political balance, they’re now worse than useless.


The drop in ratings shows that many other Conservatives feel the same way. I recommend Fox Business Network.  Their anchors are surprised to find themselves in the Conservative seat and they occasionally remind the audience that their first mission is the business news.


That’s okay. Capitalism is good.  Nor do Stuart Varney, Neil Cavuto or Lou Dobbs seem to mind stretching the news envelope.


Bill O’Reilly was railroaded out of Fox News on the basis of some rather spurious sexual harassment claims. The next target is Sean Hannity, who has been pursuing the alleged murder of Seth Rich, a DNC operative who leaked thousands of DNC e-mails, causing harm to the party.  Fox News is now seeking grounds to terminate Hannity’s contract as well.


For 17 years, Fox News was a reliable source for the Conservative viewpoint. We could depend upon them to tell us the other side of the story, which was nearly always the truth.  They were the counterpoint to the Mainstream Media.


Fox News executives were pilloried at industry conferences and meetings. They were treated like pariahs.  No one “networked” with the Fox News team.  That is the price we pay for telling the truth in a corrupt world.


Fox News couldn’t be destroyed from the outside. Fox constantly beat its competition.  So enemies from within gradually wrested the reins of power and corrupted the network.  Those of who were alert saw the signs of its demise early on and switched to Fox Business News.


No doubt, they’ll force Hannity out eventually. News networks are not public institutions.  The owners can hire and fire at will.  Those with enough money were able to buy their way into ownership of the network and change its Conservative course.


Let us hope and pray that another network will arise to take its place in the realm of television news (we would suggest they not go public with their stock). The stakes are too critical not to have a major Conservative news network on the air.  We cannot let the Liberals win this war.  Truth must prevail.


Fox News is dead. Best of luck to Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and the others.  We hope to see them again soon.  Long live Conservative news.



Published in: on May 24, 2017 at 12:15 pm  Leave a Comment  

Dangerous Woman Versus Dangerous Terrorists

Manchester, England. May 22, 2017.  Another terrorist bombing.  Another concert venue.  Another pool of blood.  Another list of innocent victims – really innocent, as in six year-olds.  Another day of mourning.  Another day of asking, “Why?!”


Just the other day, Pres. Trump asked the council in Saudi Arabia to drive the terrorists out of their communities and out of their mosques. ISIS drove the community out of Syrian towns and into the West, flooding in amongst them like stalking horses to create terror and havoc in France, Germany, and England.  They find the most vulnerable victims – the young – and murder them mercilessly because they believe Allah wills it.


The President called them “losers.” Prime Minister Theresa May called them “cowards.”  They don’t think they are and never.  They believe they have a mandate of their god, Allah, to wipe out the taqfiri (Islamic apostates) and the kafiri, the unbelievers.  Their mission is to wipe out the corrupted, perverted children of the West, install Sharia law, and create a global caliphate.  Even as Pres. Trump is calling on Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries to grant women equal rights, the Islamic “warriors” are preparing for battle.


Ariana Grande is anti-Trump, anti-American, pro-Muslim, pro-Refugee, and pro-Feminist – that is to say, she only approves of men in her lyrics. The Muslim Terrorists are certainly not pro-Ariana Grande.  But what does that have to do with killing little girls?  Well, they do it all the time in their own countries.  They kill little girls just for going to school in Islamic nations.  So they wouldn’t blink an eye at killing little girls at a decidedly inappropriate concert where the “artist” dresses like a playboy bunny in leather.



[Verse 1] Don’t need permission Made my decision to test my limits ‘Cause it’s my business, God as my witness Start what I finished Don’t need no hold up Taking control of this kind of moment I’m locked and loaded Completely focused, my mind is open [Pre-Chorus] All that you got Skin to skin, oh my God Don’t ya stop, boy [Chorus] Somethin’ ’bout you makes me feel like a dangerous woman Somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout you Makes me wanna do things that I shouldn’t Somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout [Verse 2] Nothing to prove and I’m bulletproof and Know what I’m doing The way we’re movin’ Like introducing us to a new thing I wanna savor, save it for later The taste, the flavor ‘Cause I’m a taker, ’cause I’m a giver It’s only nature I live for danger [Pre-Chorus] All that you got Skin to skin, oh my God Don’t ya stop, boy [Chorus] Somethin’ ’bout you makes me feel like a dangerous woman Somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout you Makes me wanna do things that I shouldn’t Somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout you [Refrain] All girls wanna be like that Bad girls underneath, like that You know how I’m feeling inside Somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout All girls wanna be like that Bad girls underneath, like that You know how I’m feeling inside Somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout [Instrumental Bridge] [Chorus] Somethin’ ’bout you makes me feel like a dangerous woman Somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout you Makes me wanna do things that I shouldn’t Somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout you [Refrain] All girls wanna be like that Bad girls underneath like that You know how I’m feeling inside Somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout All girls wanna be like that Bad girls underneath like that You know how I’m feeling inside Somethin’ ’bout, somethin’ ’bout


This is not to condone in anyway the murder of children (or anyone else) at a concert. The bomber used a nail bomb to inflict further damage on those he or she couldn’t actually kill outright.


What are we missing here? We’ll stop asking “why?” when we get the picture.


Islam is a fanatical religion, no matter how peaceful some of its adherents may claim to be. One way or the other, they intend to “convert” us, preferably (for the “peaceful” Muslims) through inundation, legally overwhelming our population until we’re forced into conversion or pay an exorbitant tax that will bankrupt resisters into conversion.


The more militant Islamists, like their political counterparts, the Marxists, believe violent force is the only way to conquer the world. They believe – probably correctly – that nothing short of force will convince us to convert, to renounce our own faiths.


The Liberals, frankly, don’t want to be nuked or bombed in the very kind of nightclub that they frequent and Islamists attack. So they’re banking on the “Refugee Solution:”  allowing hordes of Muslims (along with Marxist Mexicans and South Americans) to flood our borders.  Acquiesce to every demand.  Accommodate every “request” to subvert all other religions.  Excuse every violation of our own Constitution.  Turn a blind eye to the entry of known terrorists into the United States and Western Europe.


The lyrics to “Dangerous Woman” are mild compared to most of the rock lyrics burning up the Top 40 these days. Still for six and eight year-olds to be bumping and grinding to a song that bids them to yield to their inner Bad Girl can’t be a good thing.  We know what Ariana was thinking.


But what are the parents of the little girls who adore Ariana thinking? A song that tells six year-olds, with their mothers sitting right next to them, that they “don’t need permission,” tells you something unfortunate about our culture.  We’re sexualizing our children at younger and younger ages, and applauding as they shake their booties.


The Liberals and Radical Islamists are double-teaming us. The Liberals create the debauched target at which the Islamists self-righteously aim.  The Liberals hate Christianity and, of course, the Islamists opinion of Jews and Christians is by now all-too-obvious.


On the issue of women and gender the Muslim Brotherhood interprets Islam conservatively. Its founder called for “a campaign against ostentation in dress and loose behavior,” “segregation of male and female students,” a separate curriculum for girls, and “the prohibition of dancing and other such pastimes …”

Despite the Western “Cultural Revolution” of the 1960s, Islamic disdain of Western culture and practices pre-dates the Sixties. In the 1940s, Muslim Brotherhood member Sayyid Qutb wrote a book, “Social Justice in Islam.”  He had moved to Greeley, Colo.  While there, he attended a church dance in which he observed men and women dancing cheek to cheek and everything else to everything else.  He was greatly offended, even as the church pastor smiled approvingly at the proceedings.


Pres. Trump spoke about Muslim art and music. The problem is, they don’t permit music and dancing.  Music is only performed for religious purposes; dancing is completely prohibited.  The only art they practice is in their architecture.  Muslim nations claim that nothing in the Koran proscribes women wearing the hijab.  However, the Muslim clerics advocate the covering up of women and any woman who defies this “law” can expect a visit from the religious police in Iran or to be beaten to death by her husband, father or brother at home.  What’s more, no Islamic jury would convict the man of such an “honor killing.”


We’re a world wildly out of balance. To expect peace in such an insensate world is unrealistic, and improbable.  Half the world (the Western half) has become so intoxicated that it is spinning out of control and the other half, rigid, unyielding and self-righteous, feels so threatened by the other’s excesses that it is ready to commit genocide with the intention of restoring “order” to the world.


This can only lead to a very bad place – a worldwide dictatorship. The Liberals know this and have been leading our Western society like lambs to the slaughter.  For every massacre like the one that occurred last night in Manchester, Liberal voices will rise louder in their defense of having license to commit every act of sexual immorality – and then commit those acts and write songs in tribute to them.  Remember:  Adriana has gone on record as being pro-Muslim.


The further we go, the further the Muslims will go. No, it’s not right.  It’s murder.  The Muslims ought never have been allowed to infiltrate our country to the degree they have.  You don’t kill eight year-old children in the name of God.  But apparently, they regularly kill children in the name of Allah.


Our hearts go out to the mothers and fathers of Manchester.


Our condemnation goes out to the forces of the Islamic State.


And our contempt goes out to “Counter-Culture” artists like Ariana who encourage six year-olds to be “Bad Girls,” placing them in the path of religious fanatics who put no age limit on their victims.








Published in: on May 23, 2017 at 11:41 am  Leave a Comment  

Media, Left Fail to Habeas Trump’s Corpus

Despite much ballyhoo last week that they’d found the smoking gun that would lead to Donald Trump’s impeachment, after only about five months in office, the Left and the Media had to admit that there is absolutely no evidence of collusion between Trump, his campaign people, and the Russians. Maxine Waters admitted “there was no evidence.”


The infamous Comey “memo” – which stated that Trump asked Comey if he could let the Flynn (the former National Security Adviser) go – wasn’t even written by Comey; the memo that had D.C. Insiders riled was written by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Trump decided to fire Comey before Rosenstein wrote a memo outlining his own concerns, Rosenstein himself clarified last Friday.

When it was announced this month that Comey had been fired, White House officials initially pointed to the Rosenstein memo as a reason for firing the FBI director. As we know, he was overseeing an investigation into any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Trump said in a subsequent interview with NBC News that he had been planning to fire Comey before he received the Rosenstein memo.

In a statement on Friday seen by Reuters, Rosenstein writes: “I informed the senior attorney that the president was going to remove Director Comey, (and) that I was writing a memorandum to the attorney general summarizing my own concerns.”

The statement, first reported by NBC News, Rosenstein goes on to outline some of his concerns with Comey’s job performance. But toward the end of the 2 1/2-page document, Rosenstein writes: “My memorandum is not a statement of reasons to justify a for-cause termination (firing).”

Rosentein’s predecessor, Sally Yates, served as Acting Attorney General from Jan. 20, 2017, until shew as dismissed by Pres. Trump on Jan. 30, 2017, following her instruction to the Justice Department not to defend Trump’s immigration-related executive order in court. Yates was appointed by Obama.

Trump’s firing of Comey led to a week of Media yammering. The Leftist Media were convinced they had their Saturday Night Massacre.  The Right Media nagged on and on about Trump’s timing.  They still haven’t completely stopped shaking this dead-end issue.  Trump told NBC news reporter Lester Holt on May 11 that he’d already planned to fire Comey before he ever saw the Rosenstein memo.  He called the former FBI director “a showboat” and later, “a nut-job.”

The Conservative media nearly died of apoplexy when they heard the interview and later when Trump re-Tweeted the remark. That’s just vintage Trump.  At least he didn’t drop the F-bomb.  We, the People, thought nothing of Trump’s calling Comey names.  If name-calling bothered us, we’d never have elected him.

While the average American considers “Drain the Swamp” a campaign slogan, the creatures in the Washington swamp on both sides of the aisle are taking it a little more seriously. Could it be they and their media allies didn’t want to see Comey fired because a new FBI director might just look into the Uranium One-Rosatom Russian uranium deal?

This issue has clearly been on the Media’s mind lately. One of the Leftist news magazine’s headline read:  “Why We Really Don’t Need to Investigate the Uranium Deal.”  Snopes, the Leftist “fact-checker” listed the story as “False.”

However, no less a newspaper than The New York Times itself reported on the story on April 23, 2015.

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed, and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Frank Giustra, a mining financier, donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Anyone on the Left care to contradict The New York Times?

What we have here is a classic case of diversion by nervous Congressmen on both sides of the aisle, numerous bureaucrats whose jobs are in jeopardy, and a Media indignant that the American people voted for Donald Trump, a Capitalist businessman.

The Media has been trying to force on us questionable polls that indicate Trump is unpopular. This is the same Media that insisted that Hillary Clinton was going to win and that Trump didn’t stand a chance.  They would have us believe that he’s still (if he ever was) a clown, a bumpkin, a simpleton out of his league in Washington.

Yeah, right. He didn’t win a majority of a very questionable vote, especially in California, whose state assembly has a bill pending to make Communism legal.  Still, thanks to the Electoral College, enough of us did vote for him in the right places to bring about his election.

Trump’s election still confounds the Democrats and the Liberal Right, who hate and despise him. He’s received more biased coverage – 80 percent – than any modern U.S. President.  However, while the Mainstream Media leans far over to the left and is dragging Moderate Republican pundits with them, average Americans have resource to alternative forms of communication where they can learn the truth, Snopes notwithstanding.

Moderate Republicans are understandably anxious about the elections in November. They don’t want to find themselves on the wrong side of their donors’ viewpoints.  Money talks.  George Soros has a lot of money and does a lot of talking and trouble-making.  Trump wouldn’t be afraid of him.  But the Swamp is.

A confident, secure Pres. Trump and First Lady Melania took off for a tour of the Middle East, not at all fazed, it appears, by the Media name-calling, accusations, and trial-by-pundit. There’s no evidence, as ridiculous as it sounds, that he colluded with Russia to tilt the election in his favor.  There’s no evidence that he ever asked his FBI director to stand down on an investigation.

And there’s no evidence that he’s anything but presidential.

Conservative pundits may sputter and fume all they like about Trump’s “timing” in firing Comey, about “upsetting” the Left and not having the bona fides to be a president.

But listen – they had the same opinion of Ronald Reagan – the former actor. Reagan had previously served as governor of California, while Trump has held no political office.  His career has been building ivory towers from which the elite could hold forth over the hoi polloi of America.

No wonder they’re perplexed at Trump’s election: they couldn’t hear us from their lofty perches.



Published in: on May 22, 2017 at 5:50 pm  Leave a Comment  

What Goes Around, “Comeys” Around

Liberal Democrats, having come of age in the Sixties and early Seventies – think Hillary Clinton graduating from Wellesley in 1969 and attending Yale thereafter during the most tumultuous campus riots (up until now) – seem to have slipped into their dotage.

Aging, senile senators and creaky congressmen are looking for their Saturday Night Massacre moment now that Pres. Trump has finally fired F.B.I. Director James Comey for his big fail in failing to produce the obvious evidence against Hillary Clinton regarding her leaked e-mails and her culpability in regard to the Clinton Foundation.

The Saturday Night Massacre refers to Pres. Richard Nixon’s orders to fire independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, which led to the resignations of Attorney General Eliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus on Oct. 20, 1973, during the Watergate scandal. Nixon suspected the Democrat Party of accepting foreign campaign donations, which is illegal. A group of Republican Party operatives broke into the Democrat campaign headquarters in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C., which was also illegal. No evidence was ever brought against the Democrats, but eventually the scandal resulted in the resignation of Nixon as president of the United States.

The Democrats are hoping, on much weaker grounds, that history will repeat itself: a Republican president, suspecting a Democrat candidate of eliciting illegal foreign donations, orders an “illegal” investigation, then tries to cover it up.

Except that Trump hasn’t (so far). He said once he was elected, he would not order an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s alleged misdeeds including the thousands of leaked e-mails indicating that she may be guilty. Maybe he’s changed his mind; let’s hope so.

According to Fox News, on Tuesday, President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who came under fire during last year’s campaign for his inept handling of the Clinton e-mail probe — and whose agency has been investigating since before Trump was even nominated as the Republican candidate whether his campaign had ties to Russia.

The president informed Comey in a brief letter that he could not “effectively lead” the bureau and called for “new leadership that restores public trust and confidence” in law enforcement.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the president’s decision was based on “the clear recommendations” of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

The White House made the announcement shortly after the FBI corrected a sentence in Comey’s sworn testimony on Capitol Hill last week. The director had told congressional lawmakers that Huma Abedin, as a top aide to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had sent “hundreds and thousands” of emails to her husband’s laptop, including some with classified information.

On Tuesday, the FBI said in a two-page letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that only “a small number” of the thousands of emails found on the laptop had been forwarded there while most had simply been backed up from electronic devices.

But that error was apparently unrelated to the Comey firing. DOJ officials instead cited his handling of the Clinton probe. Comey first ran into problems during the 2016 presidential race when he tried to conclude his investigation into Clinton’s use of a private server system for emails while at the State Department.

He concluded that Clinton, then the Democratic presidential nominee, had not acted criminally with classified emails but said she had been “extremely careless.” He then announced a revived probe regarding the emails and Abedin’s handling of them in the closing days of the race.

Democrats, for their part (possibly to derail Trump’s campaign early in the race and later, to alleviate heat generated by Clinton’s e-mail scandal) have been clamoring for nearly a year about a possible connection between campaign associates and Russia.

The big deal in the Russia “scandal”? One of Trump’s PR men may have served as an image booster for Vladimir Putin.

That’s it. That’s the whole “scandal” in a nutshell. So, of course, Hillary Clinton’s sale of 20 percent of America’s uranium supplies pales in comparison to this earth-shaking revelation. The classified information in the leaked e-mails – which were sent to Anthony the Weener Weiner’s computer – is small potatoes compared to this national security crisis posed by Trump’s campaign.

You might have thought that, well, the guy in the black hat is former Exxon CEO Secretary of State Tillson or now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who held two meetings with the Russian ambassador prior to the election.

But, no. Tillson’s relations with Russia go all the way back to the late 1980s and early 1990s. Sessions’ meetings with the Russian ambassador were hardly back-room deals; Sessions brought the ambassador in to express his displeasure with Russia’s interference in the Middle East.

Convinced that Trump’s tax records would reveal his dastardly dealings, the FBI reviewed his tax records. They could find absolutely no evidence of any business holdings in Russia, no dealings with any company in Russia, no dealings with the Russian government. The only item the investigation turned up was that the Trump-sponsored Miss Universe Pageant was held in Moscow in 2006.

The Miss Universe Pageant. THE MISS UNIVERSE PAGEANT?!

We know that the Democrats are really desperate to link Trump with Russia. But a beauty pageant? The Democrats have reached so far that they’ll have to have their suits specially-tailored to fit the stretched-out left arm they’ve been using to try to pin something on the mighty Trump.

Could anything be more ludicrous than the left-leaning Democrat Party and the Marxist Media, which have been in bed with Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, and Trotskyites since the 1930s accusing a successful Capitalist of sleeping with the enemy? Or at least dealing with him?

In the end, Trump’s black hat guy – the villain in the Democrats’ minds – is just some two-bit PR hack writer. The Left seems quite certain that someone helped get Trump elected, that he couldn’t possibly have managed the election on his own. They also believe that his followers are not the majority of Americans. However, a sizeable minority, if not a majority, of Hillary’s followers were not Americans at all.

Clinton was clearly not made for television the way Trump was. The Left can’t quite grasp that theirs was a not-ready-for-prime-time candidate. Videos of her collapsing at the 9/11 Memorial Service in New York City didn’t help her. Neither did then-Pres. Obama whose health care plan was proving ever more unpopular and costly. They couldn’t quite grasp that the sheeple would turn on the sheeple-herders.

The Democrats figure if they could just get some mud on whoever “helped” Trump turn his campaign around – remember, everyone – the Democrats, the Media, even the Republicans – had him in the Loser column – they could discredit Trump himself and maybe add a charge of cover-up as a bonus. They’re even pipe-dreaming of a Nixonian impeachment or resignation.

If they’re looking for a “culprit” who helped Trump turn his image around, they need look no further than the lady at his side, First Lady Melania Trump. Intelligent (she speaks seven languages), sensible, loyal, poised, and beautiful, he didn’t need to hire an image consultant; he was married to one. All he had to do was listen to her – and evidently he did, and won the hearts of the American people and the election.

The Comey story is really quite simple: Trump had enough of Comey’s ineptitude. As president, he had every right to fire him without any investigations into his decision. He knew sooner or later the Media and the Democrats would cry, “Saturday Night Massacre!” and the witch hunt would begin. Still, keeping Comey on was an insult to all the members of the FBI – the rank-and-file who have served our country honorably.

The Democrats are rather like a toothless dog at this point. But they’re counting on an ignorant public to follow their lead in raising the cry for an investigation of Trump before his own FBI director can begin an investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Clinton served (rather dishonorably, it must be noted) on the Watergate Committee years ago. She even tried to claim that Nixon had no right to defend himself. She was summarily dismissed, at last, from the panel, although Nixon was ultimately forced to resign for lying about covering up for the Watergate burglars.

What better justice could we ask for than this: that this president is not investigated for firing an incompetent, partisan director, but instead goes on to appoint an investigator who may just find Clinton guilty as charged.

Hope she hasn’t thrown away her orange jumpsuit.

  • Share via Direct Message
  • Copy link to Tweet
  • Embed Tweet
  • Mute @kwilli1046
  • Unmute @kwilli1046
  • Block @kwilli1046
  • Unblock @kwilli1046
  • Report Tweet
  • Add to other Moment
  • Add to new Moment
Published in: on May 12, 2017 at 10:20 pm  Leave a Comment  

The People Are Done Backing Down on Obamacare: A People’s FB Conversation

Pres. Trump is taking back America so fast and furiously, it’s hard to keep up with him. We’ll deal with his firing of FBI Director James Comey presently.  At least the firing has taken the pundits’ minds of the new health care bill.


Does anybody EVER ask the American people how they feel about government-sponsored medical care? Does anyone in the federal (or state) government even know any real people.


Here’s a conversation about the new health care act from some real-life friends (former co-workers) on Facebook the other day. Miss P is one audacious lady.  She never held back on expressing her opinions and feelings, God bless her!  Here, she leads the FB conversation about the new American Health Care Act of 2017, repealing much of Obama’s Affordable Care Act.


The bill passed the House of Representatives and now faces a tighter vote in the Senate, where Liberal Republicans are even less aware of the existence of real Americans than their counterparts in the House. The only people they know are donors and “victims” whom they can exploit.


One element of the new bill is the Pre-Existing Conditions clause which, in Obamacare, was eliminated. Insurers could not discriminate against policyholders who had a pre-existing condition.  The debate now is whether pre-existing conditions have returned and what patients are supposed to do about it, especially if they’re older.


Miss P. urged everyone to read the bill before commenting upon it. Here is the summary:

American Health Care Act of 2017


Subtitle A–Patient Access to Public Health Programs

(Sec. 101) This bill amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to eliminate funding after FY2018 for the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which provides for investment in prevention and public health programs to improve health and restrain the rate of growth in health care costs. Funds that are unobligated at the end of FY2018 are rescinded.

(Sec. 102) The bill amends the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 to increase funding for community health centers.

(Sec. 103) For one year, certain federal funds may not be made available to states for payments to certain family planning providers (e.g., Planned Parenthood Federation of America).

Subtitle B–Medicaid Program Enhancement

(Sec. 111) The bill amends title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act (SSAct) to limit the state option for a participating-provider hospital to preliminarily determine an individual’s Medicaid eligibility for purposes of providing the individual with medical assistance during a presumptive eligibility period. The bill lowers, from 133% to 100% of the official poverty line, the minimum family-income threshold that a state may use to determine the Medicaid eligibility of children between the ages of 6 and 19. In addition, the bill reduces the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for Medicaid home- and community-based attendant services and supports.

(Sec. 112) Beginning in 2020, the bill eliminates: (1) the enhanced FMAP for Medicaid services furnished to adult enrollees made newly eligible for Medicaid by PPACA; and (2) the expansion of Medicaid, under PPACA, to cover such enrollees. However, a state Medicaid program may continue to provide coverage, with the enhanced FMAP, to such enrollees who were enrolled prior to 2020 and do not subsequently have any break in eligibility exceeding one month. With respect to states that expanded Medicaid under PPACA, current law provides for transitional FMAP increases through 2019. The bill eliminates these increases after 2017, capping the FMAP at the 2017 level. Under current law, any alternative benefit plan offered by a state Medicaid program is required to provide specified essential health benefits. The bill eliminates this requirement beginning in 2020. (“Essential health benefits” include ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services, laboratory services, preventative and wellness services, and pediatric services.)

(Sec. 113) The bill eliminates Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payment reductions: (1) with respect to states that did not implement Medicaid expansion under PPACA, beginning in FY2018; and (2) with respect to other states, beginning in FY2020. (DSH hospitals receive additional payment under Medicaid for treating a large share of low-income patients.)

(Sec. 114) The bill specifies how a state must treat qualified lottery winnings and lump sum income, beginning in 2020, for purposes of determining an individual’s income-based eligibility for a state Medicaid program. Specifically, a state shall include such winnings or income as income received: (1) in the month in which it was received, if the amount is less than $80,000; (2) over a period of two months, if the amount is at least $80,000 but less than $90,000; (3) over a period of three months, if the amount is at least $90,000 but less than $100,000; and (4) over an additional one-month period for each increment of $10,000 received, not to exceed 120 months. An individual whose income exceeds the applicable eligibility threshold due to qualified lump sum income may continue to be eligible for medical assistance to the extent that the state determines that denial of eligibility would cause undue medical or financial hardship. Qualified lump sum income includes: (1) monetary winnings from gambling, and (2) income received as liquid assets from the estate of a deceased individual. In addition, the bill eliminates the requirement for up to three months of retroactive coverage under Medicaid. Under current law, a state Medicaid program must provide coverage for up to three months prior to an individual’s application for benefits if the individual would have been eligible for benefits during that period. The bill eliminates this requirement and instead specifies that coverage begins in the month during which the individual applies for benefits. The bill allows a state to delay or deny an individual’s initial eligibility for Medicaid benefits without providing a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence of a satisfactory immigration status or pending official verification of such status. A state that elects to provide a reasonable period for an individual to provide such evidence may not receive payment for amounts expended on the individual’s medical assistance during that period. In addition, the bill disallows a state from using, for purposes of determining Medicaid eligibility for long-term care assistance, a home equity limit that exceeds the statutory minimum.

(Sec. 115) With respect to states that did not expand Medicaid coverage under PPACA, the bill: (1) with specified limitations, provides for additional federal funding for certain health care services; and (2) through 2022, increases the applicable FMAP. A non-expansion state that subsequently expands Medicaid coverage under PPACA shall become ineligible for this funding.

(Sec. 116) No less frequently than every six months, states must re-determine the eligibility of adult enrollees made newly eligible for Medicaid by PPACA. The bill temporarily increases by 5% the FMAP for expenditures that are attributable to meeting this requirement. In addition, the bill increases the civil penalty for improperly filing certain Medicaid claims related to Medicaid expansion under PPACA.

Subtitle C–Per Capita Allotment For Medical Assistance

(Sec. 121) Under current law, state Medicaid programs are guaranteed federal matching funds for qualifying expenditures. The bill establishes limits on federal funding for state Medicaid programs beginning in FY2020. Specifically, the bill establishes targeted spending caps for each state, using a formula based on the state’s FY2016 medical assistance expenditures in each enrollee category: (1) the elderly, (2) the blind and disabled, (3) children, (4) adults made newly eligible for Medicaid by PPACA, and (5) all other enrollees. With respect to a state that exceeds its targeted spending cap in a given fiscal year, the bill provides for reduced federal funding in the following fiscal year. In addition, the bill: (1) requires additional reporting and auditing of state data on medical assistance expenditures, and (2) temporarily increases the FMAP with respect to certain data reporting expenditures.

Subtitle D–Patient Relief and Health Insurance Market Stability

(Sec. 131) After 2019, the bill eliminates cost-sharing reductions for low-income individuals with certain health insurance.

(Sec. 132) The bill amends the SS Act to establish and make appropriations for the Patient and State Stability Fund to provide funding to states through 2026, including to: provide financial assistance to high-risk individuals so they may enroll in health insurance, stabilize health insurance premiums, promote participation and increase options in the health insurance market, pay providers for services, and provide financial assistance to enrollees to reduce out-of-pocket costs. Funding is allocated to states based on each state’s share of incurred claims and uninsured individuals below the poverty line. To receive funding, states must provide matching funds at a rate that grows from 7% in 2020 to 50% in 2026.

(Sec. 133) Health insurers must increase premiums by 30% for one year for enrollees in the individual or small group market who had a break in coverage of more than 62 days in the previous year.

(Sec. 134) Beginning in 2020, health insurance benefits no longer must conform to actuarial tiers (e.g., silver level benefits).

Note: According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM),

Actuarial value (AV) is a measure of the percentage of expected health care costs a health plan will cover and can be considered a general summary measure of health plan generosity. Section 1302(d)(2) of the Affordable Care Act defines AV relative to coverage of the essential benefits (EHB) for a standard population. AV is generally calculated by computing the ratio of (i) the total expected payments by the plan for essential health benefits (EHB), computed in accordance with the plan’s cost-sharing rules (i.e., deductibles, co-insurance, co-payments, out-of-pocket limits), for a standard population; over (ii) the total costs for the EHB the standard population is expected to incur. For example, a plan with an 80 percent AV would be expected to pay, on average, 80 percent of a standard population’s expected medical expenses for the EHB. The individuals covered by the plan would be expected to pay, on average, the remaining 20 percent of the expected expenses in the form of deductibles, co-payments, and coinsurance.

(Sec. 135) The bill increases the ratio by which health insurance premiums may vary by age, from a three to one ratio to a five to one ratio. This ratio may be preempted by states.


Subtitle A–Repeal and Replace of Health-Related Tax Policy

Sections 201-203 of the bill make several modifications to the premium assistance tax credit for a transition period and repeal the credit after 2019. (The credit is currently provided to eligible individuals and families to subsidize the purchase of health insurance plans on an exchange.)

(Sec. 201) This section makes taxpayers liable for the full amount of excess advance payments of the credit. (Under current law, liability for certain low-income households is limited to an applicable dollar amount.)

(Sec. 202) This section modifies the premium assistance tax credit to: make the credit available for catastrophic qualified health plans and plans that are not offered through an exchange, but otherwise meet the requirements for qualified health plans; prohibit the credit from being used for grandfathered or grandmothered health plans; prohibit the credit from being used for health plans that cover abortions (other than abortions necessary to save the life of the mother or abortions with respect to a pregnancy that is the result of an act of rape or incest); and revise the formula used to calculate the credit using a schedule that varies with household income and the age of individuals or family members.

(Sec. 203) This section repeals the premium assistance tax credit for health coverage that begins after December 31, 2019.

(Sec. 204) This section modifies the small employer tax credit for employee health insurance expenses to: (1) prohibit the credit from being used for health plans that include coverage for abortions (other than any abortion necessary to save the life of the mother or any abortion with respect to a pregnancy that is the result of an act of rape or incest) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017; and (2) repeal the credit for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2019.

(Sec. 205) This section repeals the penalties for individuals who are not covered by a health plan that provides at least minimum essential coverage (commonly referred to as the individual mandate). The repeal is effective for months beginning after December 31, 2015.

(Sec. 206) This section repeals the penalties for certain large employers who do not offer full-time employees and their dependents minimum essential health coverage under an employer-sponsored health plan (commonly referred to as the employer mandate). The repeal is effective for months beginning after December 31, 2015.

(Sec. 207) This section delays the implementation of the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage (commonly referred to as the Cadillac tax) until 2025. (Under current law, the tax goes into effect in 2020.)

(Sec. 208) This section permits tax-favored health savings accounts (HSAs), Archer Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs), health flexible spending arrangements (FSAs), and health reimbursement arrangements to be used to purchase over-the-counter medicine that is not prescribed by a physician.

(Sec. 209) This section repeals the increase in the tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs that are not used for qualified medical expenses. The bill reduces the tax on HSA distributions from 20% to 10% and reduces the tax for Archer MSA’s from 20% to 15% to return the taxes to the levels that existed prior to the enactment of PPACA.

(Sec. 210) This section repeals the limitation on FSA salary reduction contributions.

(Sec. 211) This section repeals the medical device excise tax for sales in calendar years beginning after December 31, 2017.

(Sec. 212) The provision permits employers who provide Medicare-eligible retirees with qualified prescription drug coverage and receive federal subsidies for prescription drug plans to claim a deduction for the expenses without reducing the deduction by the amount of the subsidy.

(Sec. 213) This section repeals the increase in the income threshold used to determine whether an individual may claim an itemized deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses. The bill allows all taxpayers to claim an itemized deduction for unreimbursed expenses medical expenses that exceed 7.5% (10% under current law) of adjusted gross income.

(Sec. 214) This section repeals the additional Medicare tax that is imposed on certain employees and self-employed individuals with wages or self-employment income above specified thresholds.

(Sec. 215) The section establishes a refundable, advanceable tax credit beginning in 2020 for certain taxpayers who purchase health insurance and who are not eligible for other sources of coverage. The credit applies for health insurance coverage that: is offered in the individual health insurance market within a state or is unsubsidized COBRA continuation coverage; is not a grandfathered or grandmothered plan; substantially all of which is not for excepted benefits providing only limited coverage, such as dental, vision, or long-term care; does not include coverage for abortions (other than any abortion necessary to save the life of the mother or any abortion with respect to a pregnancy that is the result of an act of rape or incest); does not consist of short-term limited duration insurance; and is certified by the state in which the insurance is offered as meeting the requirement of this bill. The bill specifies credit amounts which are based on age and adjusted gross income. It also limits the annual credit amount to $14,000 per family. If the amount paid for the insurance is less than the credit amount, Treasury may deposit the excess into an HSA of the individual or a qualifying family member as designated by the individual. The Department of the Treasury must establish a program not later than January 1, 2020, for making advance payments to providers of eligible health insurance on behalf of individuals eligible for the credit. The bill specifies reporting requirements for health insurance providers who provide eligible health insurance coverage to individuals.

(Sec. 216) This section increases the limits on HSA contributions to match the sum of the annual deductible and out-of-pocket expenses permitted under a high deductible health plan.

(Sec. 217) This section permits both spouses of a married couple who are eligible for HSA catch-up contributions to make the contributions to the same HSA account.

(Sec. 218) This section permits an HSA to be used to pay certain medical expenses that were incurred before the HSA was established. If the HSA is established during the 60-day period beginning on the date that an individual’s coverage under a high deductible health plan begins, the HSA is treated as having been established on the date coverage under the high deductible health plan begins to determine whether an amount paid is used for a qualified medical expense.

Subtitle B–Repeal of Certain Consumer Taxes

(Sec. 221) This section repeals the annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers.

(Sec. 222) This section repeals the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share.

Subtitle C–Repeal of Tanning Tax

(Sec. 231) This section repeals the 10% excise tax on the price of indoor tanning services.

Subtitle D–Remuneration From Certain Insurers

(Sec. 241) The section repeals a provision that prohibits certain health insurance providers from deducting remuneration paid to an officer, director, or employee in excess of $500,000.

Subtitle E–Repeal of Net Investment Income Tax

(Sec. 251) This section repeals the 3.8% tax on the net investment income of individuals, estates, and trusts with incomes above specified amounts.

The summary does not clarify the problem of pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies feel it’s unfair for a patient with pre-existing conditions to buy a policy and then make immediate claims on it.  They compare it to someone buying an insurance policy on their car after they’ve had an accident (in fact, a driver has to wait 30 days after an accident before they can be insured, I believe).


Patients counter that they’ve been paying for their insurance all along, usually through an employer, and that they shouldn’t be penalized if they’ve been laid off from their jobs before retirement age. Auto insurers are no longer permitted to red-line, a practice which used to allow companies to deny coverage to drivers with poor records or who live in high-risk areas for accidents and theft.  That would pretty much mean that everyone living east of the Garden State Parkway would be unable to get coverage.


The interesting thing about cars is that historically there’s been no maintenance insurance for cars, although recently some companies have been advertising for such policies. Another new market is pet insurance.  By the way, if you’re a homeowner and you have a pooch, you should know that there are certain breeds insurance companies won’t offer protection for.


Human beings are not machines, however. Unlike a car, if a human being begins to rust, you can’t just throw them on the junk heap.  In a more responsible age, human beings recognized this mortal tendency and saved their money.  That was when you actually received interest on your savings; now, you’re penalized by the bank for saving your money in their institution.  Those were also the days when you could count on your job for life.  And Liberals wonder why we long for the Good Ole Days…


But here’s Miss P and Facebook Friends on the subject:


Miss P: Am I missing something? Keep reading panic posts about how many people are going to die and how many won’t be able to receive treatment if they have a “pre-existing” condition. For instance, poor Cher won’t be able to get her asthma meds. Seriously????  If I can afford to pay for all my OTC meds that were once prescribed and covered, I don’t think asthma is going to bankrupt Cher. Also bothering me is the fact that no one seems to remember life before the almighty life-altering Obamacare. It’s only been 7 years. What did you all do? Lots of people had pre-existing conditions 7 years ago and long before that.  I remember getting EOBs stating denied for pre-existing condition. I did then what I do now, I pay for the doctor’s visit. What about all the people that fell into that category and were denied coverage altogether? The biggest kicker here….it’s not even law. It squeaked by Congress, still has to go through Senate then get signed into law by the president. Funny how no one is complaining about all the other insurance companies assigning risk pools and charging according to what they think is right.  Little Johnny drives like an ass and has 2 DWIs so my car insurance is high. You live in an area prone to flooding, your homeowners is higher. How quickly that’s all forgotten.  Funny how 8 years inflates some people’s sense of entitlement.


KD:  I am still confused about pre-existing conditions. Does that mean you choose not to pay for healthcare insurance, then you get ill, then you get insurance and try and claim it? Like putting Collision on your car ins after you crash it


LG: While I agree with you regarding the over reactions it, my son and I do not get coverage for our pre-existing condition (asthma). It would be very expensive for us to have to buy our medication without insurance. The inhaler we both take costs $500 each per month. That’s just one medication. Most people cannot afford to do that and pre-existing conditions were covered before Obamacare.


KD:  But if you have insurance, how is it pre-existing?


LG:  If I lose my job and have to change insurance… someday he will have to get his own insurance….


KD: Ahhhhhh, I am sure that will be one of the Kinks that will have to be worked out


Miss P: Before Obamacare it was at the insurance companies’ discretion. Obamacare forced the insurance companies to cover pre-existing. My health insurance is off the charts and my premium and deductible is high to compensate for those who need Obamacare. I contribute over $150/mo, my deductible is $2350 and when (IF) I hit that deductible I’m responsible for 20%. That’s fun…know what 20% of surgery is? Took me two years to pay it off. So that’s fair? Last year, I didn’t hit my deductible until December 23 so every doctor appointment with the exception of my annual well-woman was out of pocket. My f*&# mammo wasn’t even 100%. My deductible was only $2,000 last year…only???!!! It needs to be fixed. Competition needs to be brought back and Big Pharmacy needs a kick in the ass. WTF?! Look at the epi pen and a junkie can get a free Narcan shot but a cancer victim gets bankrupted trying to live? I call BS on the whole system.


JW: Since Obamacare my deductibles have cost close to $30k. That means I’ve been paying out of pocket for my drugs every year. Why do you think you should have someone else subsidize your meds?


Miss P: Hit my deductible December 23; what was the point?

AS: Sense of entitlement?


Miss P:  I could name more than a handful who believe it’s their God given right to coast through life without ever contributing or being accountable. It’s sickening.


JD: I recommend watching Baseball!  [Ed.: Just don’t sit behind home-base; saw a guy get clobbered once by a flying bat…not pretty]  But seriously, my insurance and deductibles have skyrocketed in the past few years, not feeling it for Obamacare!


Miss P: The Cher thing and Warren throwing her 2 cents in pushed my buttons today. Neither one of them ever have to worry about going without. SHUT UP.

JD: Instead of causing unnecessary panic, Schmuck Schumer should be reaching out to negotiate a plan that both sides can back… or better yet, Congress should drop their privileged health insurance and participate with We the People…. it would be fixed very quickly!!


Miss P:  EXACTLY!  Maybe then he’d have something legit to cry about!


JD: Schmuck Schumer is a photo op in waiting! He needs to work harder and not just cry about everything!! I’m ashamed of his representation for NY.


JW: The House didn’t exempt itself.

CP: The surcharges they’re talking about imposing for pre-existing conditions are disgusting. God forbid anyone has the audacity to have asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, or breast cancer. The asshole who chooses to drive drunk and gets surcharged for it for the next 3 years is on him. I’m guessing no one would “choose” to fight breast cancer.


Miss P: Senate will never pass it. I’m not saying it’s right but seriously wtf did everyone do before Obamacare? There were plenty of sick people. I had a cancer scare while unemployed and uninsured, did what I did with the surgery, paid it off a little at a time. I’m not saying anyone chooses to be ill but I have a friend whose son has a TBI because she was forced to get insurance for the rest of her family that she can’t afford. They just don’t go to the doctor so her son can continue to receive the care he needs. Sorry but what about those families? She didn’t choose for her son to be in an accident. And for the record I’m not the asshole that chose to drink and drive so why am I paying higher insurance because someone else did and why did I get stuck because the stoned ass kid who didn’t have insurance decided to drive under my truck?


JD: They are also making hundreds of millions of $ aside to subsidize for pre-existing conditions. Nancy Pelosi admittedly voted for Obamacare without knowing what was in it…. I think we all need to study the whole plan before beating it down… we should have plenty of time while it sits in the senate!


BB: It was just announced on the news.. RIGHT NOW… that we’re all going to die. Each and every one of us is going to eventually be dead.


DO: Pre-existing conditions are still covered if you need to change insurance as long as you don’t let your insurance coverage lapse. This is the actual story.  Try not to let the media and celebrities scare you…get all the facts first! Pre-existing conditions ARE covered. It is only in the case where a person lets their insurance LAPSE and then has to renew their insurance that they won’t be covered – BUT THE GOVERNMENT WILL PAY THE DIFFERENCE (see below) – Over $200 Billion is being set aside for that purpose. As long as you stay with one provider, or switch providers without a lapse, you are fine. Furthermore the state has to apply for a waiver to even allow insurance companies to charge at a higher rate for pre-existing conditions. Plus … for those who lapse and fall into the more expensive insurance rate (high-risk pool), the federal government will pay the difference, as stated above. This has all been done this way for a valid reason. People were waiting until they were very sick to purchase insurance – now I ask you, do you think that’s fair to you? Do you think insurance companies can survive that way? And lastly, the Senate will also be working to make this healthcare act even better. So please try to look at the million great aspects of this act instead of twisting the details to bash Trump! For example, Trump has taken out 140,000 regulations – and that’s a fact! Plus no one will have to pay a penalty if they don’t have insurance, like they did with Obamacare!


Miss P:  And that D is why I love you. I’m getting really sick of find something wrong with everything just because people don’t like him. There’s some really good stuff out there if people would wait and see rather than like I said earlier jump to the wrong conclusion before anything has even happened.


DO: My problem is that Obamacare did NOT help me – it hurt us big time. Cost me over $10k a year that I wasn’t paying for the last 7 plus years that is has been in effect. So why is it ok for me to absorb the cost and do without but now that it just might be my turn to benefit from a revision it isn’t ok?? How come I am not allowed to have a little breathing room in my day to day? At this rate I will be on the government hand out line shortly. Maybe then I will see it a different way, but for now, I work damn hard for my money and I would like to keep a little of it. I don’t think that’s asking too much.


Miss P:  Me, too. Hit my deductible 12/23 so that was $2k.  I was I think $23 over…add my $150/mo benefit contribution, $430 for my glasses – mind you just lenses, and over $3500 in dental over my $1500 max. Work minimum 50 hrs a week and that’s a benefit? Kill Obamacare! Need to reevaluate the handout line you mentioned too.


DO: Oh wait – I didn’t include dental and eye care!! That was the amount my premiums went up to cover this ObamaNation!!! With a kid in braces and glasses and two adults in contacts and glasses – forget it!!


JV: I agree… Let me explain “pre-existing” condition, for those who are scared or just don’t understand…Pre-existing means, if you were diagnosed with the condition when you had no insurance and are now seeking insurance for the condition!! Get it!!!? Just like car insurance with pre-existing damage with no insurance!!! Pre-existing car damage = no coverage!! Homeowners insurance works the save way!!! Get it people? If you have insurance with the current condition and get new insurance, the condition is covered. Don’t let your health insurance lapse, if you do, you may not be covered for the condition.


CP: You can get as sarcastic as you want, and I can “get it” all I want, but some of us [Ed. Note: Most of us in this conversation worked for the same company, an ins co.] will be out of work soon. Thus losing our benefits, but thanks for the insurance lesson.


Miss P: You forget I was one of them 10 years ago. The great job I got right after they laid me off went belly up in less than 3 years. Was out of work for over 2. No job, no unemployment, no insurance. Dying dad who I ultimately lost which the only good part of being out of work was being able to spend time and take care of him. Stuff happens to all of us. I’m only being bitchy because you went there first. I didn’t choose to be out of work that long and when I finally did get a job it was for a substantial pay cut. My bills and responsibilities didn’t end because my job did. As for the insurance lesson, our good old company told me the uninsured kid was my problem so I pay them for what? They didn’t even pursue it. Dropped that subro in a heartbeat when they found out he was uninsured. So forgive my bitter mean girl. Sick of the system. Read the posted link for a healthcare bill lesson. You jumped to that same wrong conclusion that pushed my buttons to begin with. The whole pre-existing has been grossly blown out of proportion.


See post #2 with the link. It’s all explained. I’m done!! Everyone keeps hating on him [Trump]. He’s gonna get a second term. Whole reason he got elected in the first place.


JV:  Look, I voted for him. I agree 100% with what he wants and agree with this health insurance bill. I understand people get lapse in coverage for one reason or another, and if it happens you may pay a surcharge. I was just explaining the pre-existing condition clause. It’s in every health insurance policy and are currently covered and the premiums and high deductibles show for it. This bill is a way to defer the cost to the proper people, whether your job went belly up or your company has given you 10 years to find a new job!


JP: Yep he certainly is!!!! 👍🏻


Miss P: Hey JV, I knew I was losing [job] for what 3 1/2 years? I found a job before that happened. It was the next job that blindsided me but in the long run it all worked out in my favor. As for voting for him I did and I will do it again in 2020. It’s about time we get put first.


JV: Totally agreed, girl. I would vote for him again too, in a heart-beat. My 401k has gone up in last 100 days, amazing.


Miss P: Last 100 days??? Since the election! He seriously needs to pull the swamp plug. Still too many floaters.


JV: True true. Well next year is an ejection year for a lot of senators and congressmen and women… the keep fighting him the more the votes will go against these politicians, just saying 😊


Miss P: They’re making complete asses out of themselves. Grow up, work together, and get stuff done. Freaking Pelosi?? What’s up with that? Senility or drunk? Half the time she thinks he’s [Trump] Bush and no one sees a problem there? And now Obama is doing to the French campaign exactly what he and his posse accused Russia of doing to ours. Hmmmm hypocrisy much?


JP: Pelosi aka Wax Lady – needs to be moved to Madame Trusaud Museum.


LF: Some people before Obama care could not afford health insurance & didn’t have it!! Some people paid $1000 a month out of pocket, but the sad truth is Obamacare is not working for most people who make over $21,000 & have to pay outrageous deductible & the price of the premium keeps​ going up!! America needs a form of one payer!! But the people who own insurance companies & the hospitals​ & pay off our government will do whatever they can to make sure they make billions of dollars off of people being sick!!! People who make money from your illness or health is a conflict of interest!!!


Miss P: It may have helped those but it screwed the test of us. No one should’ve been forced to buy insurance they couldn’t afford. My biggest thing this morning was so many people jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about something they couldn’t be more wrong about. Like the man or not, read up about what the actual proposed plan is and people aren’t going to lose coverage because of pre-existing conditions some of which I heard were so ridiculous. People need to direct their energy elsewhere. I don’t care if you don’t like him. Plenty of us have disliked other presidents and have never ever shown such disgust and disrespect. People should be ashamed of themselves.


LF: What happens when the insurance companies drop people off? My boyfriend got dropped off of his insurance. They claim he didn’t pay but he did. He proved he did & they still refuse to give him back his insurance!! Now he has pre-existing condition & is screwed!! & Don’t think these insurance companies aren’t dropping people now!! If you wish to take them to court & the judge doesn’t find in your favor, you can get a fine of $250,00!! So the insurance companies are banking on that you will be scared crapless to fight them!!!


Miss P: You’re doing the exact thing that set me off this morning, making the exact assumptions that couldn’t be further from the truth. Go to whitehouse.gov and read the actual proposed plan. I posted it earlier. Or you can choose to believe the bullcrap being crammed down your throat by the Media and people who don’t like Trump. Either way, the TRUE proposed plan is posted. Obamacare is not what everyone needs. It tripled my deductible and made getting sick damn near unaffordable and I work too hard and too many hours to get screwed like that. $2350 deductible? Are you kidding me????


LF: It’s not bullcrap what I said & the plan the Trump administration put out sucks that simple!! & I don’t have a problem with Trump!! But I have a problem with this crap they want to replace the unaffordable insurance with some more!!! The insurance companies will still charge whatever they want, just like Obamacare. The only difference is you won’t have to buy it!!! What about caps! I read it [the bill] & it sucks. Just my opinion & you are sure entitled to yours especially on your fb page 😍 Peace


Miss P:  Have you read the actual plan? Can’t criticize it until you understand it and what the media and liberal left is putting out there is not it. I’m willing to bet you did not log onto the White House website to read the actual proposed plan like the majority of people flipping out about the pre-existing conditions. There are BILLIONS budgeted so people don’t lose their coverage. You might want to take a few minutes to read and digest it, then form an educated opinion afterwards. If you still think the country is better off with Obamacare then so be it, that’s your choice and you’re entitled to it. Just know the facts first. whitehouse.gov Hit the drop down menu, briefing room, then latest news


The White House

President Donald J. Trump

Miss P: Just read thru this again, LF.  If your boyfriend was dropped for what the insurance company is claiming is non-payment and can’t get reinsured because of a pre-existing condition then that company is in serious violation of the current insurance laws. The ACA is still in effect. May want to have him check into it. Definitely can’t even begin to blame Trump’s PROPOSED plan; it’s nowhere near a law yet. Sorry to say your boyfriend is another victim of the wonderful Obamacare.


LF: I agree Obama care is not working for sure but Trump used to know one-payer was what we need.  Every person knows I’’s what we need right up until the moment they find out who really runs this country & world for that matter!! Just take a good long look at how Obama sold out to Monsanto!! The guy vowed to get rid of the poison & GMO but no!! Not only did he not keep his promise, he let Monsanto not have to label!! Insurance companies, Monsanto, pharmaceuticals & the food industry & bowing is running this world & we the people are screwed


DW: Government should have never gotten involved in health insurance. If you want something to get screwed up have, the politicians put their hands in it.


PC: I can’t leave UPS as a package handler…it will be 5 years part time…great medical/dental plan, a part-time pension, but it’s extremely hard work.


Miss P: Unfortunately, with a full-time job and full medical benefits, being uninsured would be more affordable. Obamacare killed me. In the past three years, my deductible alone has almost tripled. Needless to say unless something catastrophic happens, I won’t reach it.


At this point in the conversation, I complimented Miss P for her fortitude in speaking out so knowledgeably on this subject. I could be wrong, but I believe Miss P has “only” a high school diploma.  The last time I actually saw her in person, we were working together in the Word Processing Department as typists.  Yet her Facebook post was far better-informed, interesting, and intelligent than anything I’ve read in the Media.  I wrote to her that the press has grossly misled the public on the American Health Care Act.


Miss P: Oh I know and if you took the time to read the whole post all sides included [which I had] you’d see I got ripped a new asshole for that [for defending pre-existing conditions clauses], too. People seem to forget I already walked down that road and at the first mention of a date [for the AHCA].  I started looking. It all comes to choices: don’t play the victim card. I didn’t. Yes my mean girl bitch card is on full display right now. Everyone is entitled to an opinion; that’s what makes our country unique. But lately if you’re on the right, you’re wrong. No one has to agree; just be educated before you pounce. No one is going to lose coverage especially for pre-existing and lord knows I myself have plenty from my knee and back to allergies and now arthritis. Another big one [a lie] – “it’s going to kill people”…just walking across the street kills people. My friend basically just blamed the new not-even-law-yet policy on her boyfriend getting bounced.  Ummm sorry.  We’re still in Obamacare he’ll. Health insurance is a total scam. There is no reason my deductible should’ve almost tripled in 3 years. I am very fortunate [in having found another job]. I work my ass off.  I get stressed to the point I scream and have thrown a thing or two including some not so nice names 😂 at my boss but overall I LOVE my job. Never saw THAT coming. I’m DONE backing down to people.


Few politicians bother to read Facebook. They certainly don’t know what real people are saying to one another about issues like health care.  Being invited onto an everyman’s or woman’s Facebook page isn’t on their agenda.  Some politicians, like N.J. Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll (NJ Distr. 25 – R) do have Facebook pages.  He posts quite often and opens his page to all sorts of discussions.


Of course, we can hardly expect them to read every single constituent’s Facebook page, either. So, the answer is for all of us to sign onto our representatives’ Facebook pages and let them know what we think.


Imagine if Miss P had written her discourse on the American Health Care Act 2017 on the Facebook page of one of our Senators or Congressmen? Or even on Donald Trump’s page or Paul Ryan’s?


Imagine if we all did it?


Published in: on May 11, 2017 at 4:07 pm  Leave a Comment