AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM


AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM: GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE,FOR THE PEOPLE -- ECONOMIC FREEDOM BASED ON FREE MARKET INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURISM -- WEALTH CREATION AS A SOURCE OF GREAT GOOD FOR THE DISADVANTAGED -- IMMIGRANTS PROVIDING UNPARALELLED ETHNIC, RELIGIOUS, RACIAL DIVERSITY -- OUR MILITARY PROVIDING AND PROTECTING WORLDWIDE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Why Britain Voted to "Leave" and What it Means for the U.S.

Excerpt - New Yorker  by John Cassidy


Looking ahead, the fate of the Remain campaign should serve as a reminder of the limits of negative campaigning—a reminder that Hillary Clinton would do well to take note of as she goes up against Donald Trump. In confronting populist demagoguery, it isn’t enough to attack its promulgators. To get people to turn out and vote in your favor, you also have to give them something positive to rally behind. 

In Flanders Fields - We Cannot Break Faith With Those Who Die

John McCrae

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row to row
That mark the place and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly.
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
 
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
 
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high,
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders Fields

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Gun Control - Some Facts

Editor Note: I don't own a gun and am not a member of or contributor to the NRA. I am admittedly a skeptic when the only side of the story I hear comes from politicians and the media. I just want to know the facts that support both sides of the gun control story.

Thomas Sowell

Surely murder is a serious subject, which ought to be examined seriously. Instead, it is almost always examined politically in the context of gun control controversies, with stock arguments on both sides that have remained the same for decades. And most of those arguments are irrelevant to the central question: Do tighter gun control laws reduce the murder rate?
That is not an esoteric question, nor one for which no empirical evidence is available. Think about it. We have 50 states, each with its own gun control laws, and many of those laws have gotten either tighter or looser over the years. There must be tons of data that could indicate whether murder rates went up or down when either of these things happened.
But have you ever heard any gun control advocate cite any such data? Tragically, gun control has become one of those fact-free issues that spawn outbursts of emotional rhetoric and mutual recriminations about the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment.
If restrictions on gun ownership do reduce murders, we can repeal the Second Amendment, as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist to protect people. People do not exist to perpetuate laws.
But if tighter restrictions on gun ownership do not reduce murders, what is the point of tighter gun control laws -- and what is the point of demonizing the National Rifle Association?
There are data not only from our 50 states but also from other countries around the world. Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm's empirical study, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," should be eye-opening for all those who want their eyes opened, however small that number of people might be.
Professor Malcolm's book also illustrates the difference between isolated, cherry-picked facts and relevant empirical evidence.
Many gun control advocates have cited the much higher murder rates in the United States than in England as due to tighter gun control laws in England. But Professor Malcolm's study points out that the murder rate in New York has been some multiple of the murder rate in London for two centuries -- and, during most of that time, neither city had serious restrictions on gun ownership.
As late as 1954, "there were no controls on shotguns" in England, Professor Malcolm reported, but only 12 cases of armed robbery in London. Of these only 4 had real guns. But in the remainder of the 20th century, gun control laws became ever more severe -- and armed robberies in London soared to 1,400 by 1974.
"As the numbers of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen" is her summary of that history in England. Conversely, in the United States the number of handguns in American homes more than doubled between 1973 and 1992, while the murder rate went down.
There are relevant facts available, but you are not likely to hear about them from politicians currently pushing for tighter gun control laws, or from the mainstream media, when those facts go against the claims of gun control advocates.
Despite hundreds of thousands of times a year when Americans use firearms defensively, none of those incidents is likely to be reported in the mainstream media, even when lives are saved as a result. But one accidental firearm death in a home will be broadcast and rebroadcast from coast to coast.
Virtually all empirical studies in the United States show that tightening gun control laws has not reduced crime rates in general or murder rates in particular. Is this because only people opposed to gun control do empirical studies? Or is it because the facts uncovered in empirical studies make the arguments of gun control zealots untenable?
In both England and the United States, those people most zealous for tighter gun control laws tend also to be most lenient toward criminals and most restrictive on police. The net result is that law-abiding citizens become more vulnerable when they are disarmed and criminals disobey gun control laws, as they disobey other laws.
The facts are too plain to be ignored. Moreover, the consequences are too dangerous to law-abiding citizens, whose lives are put in jeopardy on the basis of fact-free assumptions and unexamined dogmas. Such arguments are a farce, but not the least bit funny.
 
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage atwww.creators.com.

Friday, June 17, 2016

Congressional Reform Act - 2016


Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple!

The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail,cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2016

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 12/1/16. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

Saturday, June 11, 2016

So Sad But So Certainly True


 By Mark Hendrickson 

It’s hard to think of anything more perverse in American politics than the Curley effect. The Curley effect historically has been an urban phenomenon, but President Obama seems bent on taking the entire country down this wretched path.

As defined by Harvard scholars Edward L. Glaeser and Andrei Shleifer in a famous 2002 article, the Curley effect (named after its prototype, James Michael Curley, a four-time mayor of Boston in the first half of the 20th century) is a political strategy of “increasing the relative size of one’s political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies.” Translation: A politician or a political party can achieve long-term dominance by tipping the balance of votes in their direction through the implementation of policies that strangle and stifle economic growth. Counter intuitively, making a city poorer leads to political success for the engineers of that impoverishment.

Here’s an example of how the Curley effect works: Let’s say a mayor advocates and adopts policies that redistribute wealth from the prosperous to the not-so-prosperous by bestowing generous tax-financed favors on unions, the public sector in general, and select corporations. These beneficiaries become economically dependent on their political patrons, so they give them their undivided electoral support—e.g., votes, campaign contributions, and get-out-the-vote drives.

Meanwhile, the anti-rich rhetoric of these clever demagogues, combined with higher taxes to fund the political favors, triggers a flight of tax refugees from the cities to the suburbs. This reduces the number of political opponents on the city’s voter registration rolls, thereby consolidating an electoral majority for the anti-wealth party. It also shrinks the tax base of the city, even as the city’s budget swells. The inevitable bankruptcy that results from expanding expenditures while diminishing revenues can be postponed for decades with the help of state and federal subsidies (“stimulus” in the Obama vernacular) and creative financing, but eventually you end up with cities like Detroit—called by Glaeser and Shleifer “the first major Third World city in the United States.”

The Curley effect is extensive. Perhaps you have seen the chain e-mail listing the ten poorest U.S. cities with a population of at least 250,000: Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis, El Paso, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Newark. Besides all having poverty rates between 24 percent and 32 percent, these cities share a common political factor: Only two have had a Republican mayor since 1961, and those two (Cincinnati and Cleveland) haven’t had one since the 1980s. Democratic mayors have had a lock on City Hall despite these once-great and prosperous cities stagnating on their watch. This is the Curley effect in action.

Let me comment on the city on that list that I know the best—Detroit. (I grew up a few miles from its city limits.) In the 1920s, Detroit was arguably the richest city in the world. Today it is broke—a shadow of its former self after 51 years of Democratic hegemony and a Curley-like agenda.

I’m going to say something provocative that leftists will surely quote out of context, but it needs to be said: Detroit was a lot better off in the 1950s, when the city funded one of the best zoos in the country but had not yet built today’s gravy train for favored segments of the human population. Detroit’s decline has paralleled a shift toward funding far fewer zoo animals and far more human beings.

Critics may take this to mean that I value animals more than people. On the contrary, it is because I value humans more than animals that I find the policy shift to be morally offensive in addition to being so obviously destructive economically. It is bad enough to see a trapped lion carrying 80 pounds of flab that a lion in the wild would never have, but why would you reduce human beings to a similarly pathetic dependency? The bars that ensnare humans behind the economic and psychological cages of the government dole may not be physical, but it is pathetic to see people reduced to lives of unproductive idleness and despair, all in the name of “compassion” and, of course, for the sake of cementing Democratic mayors in office.

What is most troublesome about the Curley effect is that it is spreading beyond its historical setting of cities. Entire states—most notably our most populous, California—are manifesting all the symptoms of the Curley effect: Democrats enjoying electoral hegemony; businesses and middle-class individuals, more Republican than Democratic, emigrating to states with less oppressive tax regimes; reduced job opportunities; a budget careening toward bankruptcy.

Friday, June 3, 2016

The Story Behind Trump's Success


A Boy Named Harold
Harold was a bright child. He grew up in America. He went to school and had a bright future ahead of him.

Harold was full of life but was cut short in a violent moment. While few people had ever heard of Harold before his death, many did afterward. And in death,something very shocking happened. What was so shocking, especially when it iscompared to the death of someone else recently in the news?

Harold was Harold Greene, Major General, United States Army.

On Aug. 5, 2014, Major General Greene was killed by a Taliban terrorist. He was returned to America with full military honors.

It has been a tradition that the president attends the funeral of general and flag officers killed in the line of duty.

Richard Nixon attended the funeral of a major general killed in Vietnam and George W. Bush attended the funeral of Lieutenant General Timothy Maude, who was killed in the 9/11 attacks.
While Major General Greene was buried, Barack Obama was golfing. The vice president wasn't there either. Neither was the secretary of defense. Flags were not even lowered to half staff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../obamas-silence<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPosrhosouK-yepdTdETuhupKeKyrhKYyYPssMYrhKYyYPsttcSztV5VUs-OqejoyXIj_b0G5Bic9YKrxpkz2vbCS6hOrH0V_HYyVtNBBPHTbFEFEYPtNNxBzG8FHnjlKMVOEuvkzaT0QSCrjdTV5MQsL8EIFTudTdAVPmEBC5ecrgDa16toblFfBYXKOF3ltEnF8_UmYSgGg1h6AKrErjoKUyrz-QH2xEwDkQghYP8_Ph05ER8N-B96vErpKrovafmQbCr0Dm>...

Four days after Harold Greene gave his life for America, Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown was at best a thug. In the minutes before his death, he committed a robbery at a local convenience store. According to other reports, Brown struck Officer Darren Wilson and shattered his orbital bone.

Obama sent a three-person delegation to Brown's funeral! Obama would not attend the funeral of the highest ranking military officer killed in the line of duty since 9/11, yet he sent a delegation to the funeral of a thug.

When Margaret Thatcher, one of America's staunchest allies and Ronald Reagan's partner in bringing down Soviet communism, died, Obama  sent only a small low-level delegation to her funeral.

The snub was not missed by the British.

When Chris Kyle, the most lethal American sniper in history was murdered, there was no expression of sympathy from the White House.

But when Whitney Houston died from drug overdose, Obama ordered all flags be flown at half mast.

There was no White House delegation at the funeral of an American hero. American heroes die and Obama goes to the golf course. A thug dies and he gets a White House delegation.

No wonder most "REAL" Americans hold Obama in such contempt, especially members of our Military.

And the only difference between Obama and Hillary is that she doesn't play golf.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Our History In A Two Minute Video

Produced by 17 year old Joe Bush - Photos Copied From The Internet - Music By Jack Hemsey from the movie Interception



How Can This Self Serving, Disgusting Behavior Be Described As Anything Other Than "Crooked"?


New York Times May 25, 2016

Hillary's public explanation: "It was a matter of convenience - I only wanted to use one device"

Hillary's real reason - according to the Inspector General “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

And then this “......instructed the staff never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again” 

What more do we need to know?

5 KEY POINTS FROM THE REPORT


  • Hillary Clinton should have asked for approval to use a private email address and server for official business. Had she done so, the State Department would have said no.
  • She should have surrendered all of her emails before leaving the administration. Not doing so violated department policies that comply with the Federal Records Act.
  • When her deputy suggested putting her on a State Department account, she expressed concern about her personal emails being exposed.
  • In January 2011, the Clintons' IT consultant temporarily shut down its private server because, he wrote, he believed "someone was trying to hack us."
  • The State Department begandisciplinary proceedings against Scott Gration, then the American ambassador to Kenya, for refusing to stop using his personal email for official business.
(Powell did not have his own private server-system housed in his home!!! )

Read the entire awful story
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Jefferson "Remarkable Man" - How Did He Know?




Thomas Jefferson 
was a very remarkable man who started learning very

early in life and never stopped.

 

At 5, began studying under his cousin's tutor.

 

At 9, studied 
Latin, Greek and French.

 

At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.

 

At 16, entered 
the College of William and Mary.
Also could write in Greek with one hand while writing the same in Latin with the other.

 

At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.

 

At 23, started his own law practice.

 

At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgess's.

 

At 31, wrote the 
widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America " And retired from his law practice.

At 32, was a delegate to the Second Continental Congress.

 

At 33, wrote the

Declaration of Independence.

 

At 33, took three years to revise Virginia's legal code and wrote a Public Education 
bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.

 

At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.

 

At 40, served in 
Congress for two years.

 

At 41, was the 
American minister to France and
negotiated commercial treaties with European nations

along with Ben Franklin

and John Adams..

 

At 46,served as the first Secretary of State
under George Washington.

 

At 53, served as 
Vice President and was elected
president of the American Philosophical Society.

 

At 55, drafted 
the Kentucky Resolutions and
became the active head of Republican Party.

 

At 57, was 
elected the third president of the United States.

 

At 60, obtained 
the Louisiana Purchase doubling
the nation's size.

 

At 61, was elected to a second term as President.

 

At 65, retired to Monticello...

 

At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.

 

At 81, almost 
single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.

 

At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams.

 

Thomas Jefferson 
knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood
actual history, the nature of God, His laws and the nature 
of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand 
today.

 

Jefferson really knew his stuff.

 

A voice from the 
past to lead us in the future:

 

John F. Kennedy 
held a dinner in the White House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of 
the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

 

 

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in 
Europe,we shall
 become as corrupt as Europe ." --

Thomas 
Jefferson

 

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

-- 
Thomas 
Jefferson

 

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.

A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." 
-- 
Thomas 
Jefferson

 

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- 
Thomas 
Jefferson

 

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too muchgovernment." --

Thomas 
Jefferson

 

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." --

Thomas 
Jefferson

 

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is,

as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in 
government."
 
-- 
Thomas 
Jefferson

 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --

Thomas 
Jefferson

 

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves

and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." 
--

Thomas 
Jefferson

 

Thomas 
Jefferson said in 1802:

 

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

 

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency,

first by inflation,

then by deflation,

the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks

will deprive the people of all property -

until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."