Thursday, May 05, 2016

Black Lives Matter Leader: ‘We Will INCITE RIOTS Everywhere If Trump Wins’

U.S. Chronicle reports:
Though the outcome of America’s presidential election is still up in the air, Black Lives Matter has made it clear that one outcome is certain. If Donald Trump is the victor, violence will erupt in the streets. This according to rapper and activist Tef Poe when he took to Twitter to say,

“Dear white people if Trump wins young n****s such as myself are fully hell bent on inciting riots everywhere we go. Just so you know.”

If you are unsure who ‘Tef Poe’ is, don’t worry, you are not alone. All you really need to know about him is that he is the co-founder of the Hands Up United organization out of Ferguson, Missouri. His organization chose its name based off of the false narrative that Michael Brown, a teenage thug, had his hands up and back turned to officer Darren Wilson when he was shot.
Progressives say the darnest things.

Chris Matthews, Guest Mock Hillary Clinton Scandals as Boring ‘Garbage’; ‘Say It Louder!’


What we do in Puerto Rico sets a precedent, like it or not

The Hill

Justice Department Ignores Crucial Precedents On the North Carolina ‘Bathroom Bill’

The American Thinker

Taxi Cartel in NYC Feels Competition Pressure

Such a good thing we require college degrees for jobs people did for centuries with no college degree.

Rob Reiner roasts Trump movement: 'There are a lot of people who are racist'

Bill Clinton Hits California & Democratic-Run States on Budgets

HE’S MADE SIMILAR STATEMENTS IN ’08 AND ’12. THIRD TIME’S THE CHARM? Rush: I’ve got a hunch that Trump is headed for a landslide over Hillary.

Ed Driscoll

Peter Schiff: The Forgotten of Taxation in America

Peter Schiff has a history lesson:
Ironically, in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the elimination of tariffs was a populist issue. A little more than a century later, the polls have reversed completely. Prior to the introduction of the income tax in 1913, tariffs were the Federal Government’s principal source of revenue. During the long and contentious campaign to enact the 16th Amendment (which allowed the government to tax incomes for the first time since the emergency Civil War-era 3% to 10% income tax), proponents argued that the passage of a “soak the rich” income tax would allow the government to repeal the tariffs and thereby transfer the tax burden from the working class, who paid the tariffs through higher prices on imports, to the ultra-wealthy, who were the sole target of the income tax as it was originally conceived, packaged and sold.

(The tax originally imposed rates from 1% to 7%, and only applied to fewer than 1% of Americans. The 99% supported its enactment solely because they believed they were getting something for nothing, in this case, government services paid for by the rich. In fact, in 1895, when the Supreme Court bravely declared the government’s first attempt to replace tariffs with an income tax unconstitutional, the justices were personally vilified as defenders of the rich.)

But once the Federal Government got its foot in the door, it rapidly raised the tax rates and expanded the base of taxpayers, ultimately subjecting the middle class to rates far higher than anything originally contemplated for the Rockefellers, Carnegies, or Vanderbilts. If this does not provide a sterling example to the legions of Democrats “Feeling the Bern” of how class warfare can backfire on the class waging the war, I don’t know what does. Ironically, no single tax has done more harm to the middle class than the income tax.

So while the populist movement of the early 20th Century demanded the removal of tariffs, the populist movement of today wants to bring them back. But Trump is not talking about replacing income taxes with tariffs. He simply wants to add tariffs to the existing tax structure (though he does want to lower the rates). This will only compound our problems and make our economy far less competitive. It will not bring back our jobs; it will only increase the tax burden on the American economy, destroying, even more, jobs. If we want to undo the deal we made with the devil over 100 years ago, we need to repeal the income tax as well.
An article well worth your time.

Koch-run foundation exempt from naming top donors, judge rules

The San Francisco Chronicle

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Caught on Hot Mic Ogling Melania Trump


Here’s what bookies think of a Trump-Clinton showdown

The New York Post reports:
Donald Trump may feel invincible right now, but he’s still an underdog going into the general election.

Hillary Clinton is the favorite to win in November at odds of 4-11, according to the online bookmaker Ladbrokes — meaning you’d have to wager $11 to win $4.

The New York City tycoon, meanwhile, is a 9-4 underdog, according to the bookmaker’s Web site.

Betting on the presidential race is illegal in the United States, but the online odds capture the current zeitgeist.

“The interest is huge,” said UK-based Ladbrokes spokesman Alex Donohue. “We can’t get Donald Trump off the pages of our newspapers and our TV screens.”
Just a reminder: the bookmakers had Jeb Bush winning the GOP nomination hands down. They also gave Donald Trump almost no chance of winning the GOP nomination.

Humana considering exiting some Obamacare exchanges, raising prices

Hot Air

Skull and Bones Member Dana Milbank to Eat His Own Words?

We'd like to thank The American Thinker for linking us on Dana Milbank of Skull and Bones fame.

Suburban Chicago families file lawsuit in transgender locker room case

The Chicago Sun-Times reports:
A group of 51 suburban families filed a federal lawsuit against their Illinois school district, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday, alleging that the district is violating students’ privacy and safety by allowing transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms of the gender with which they identify.

Northwest suburban Township High School District 211 was forced to do so by the Department of Education, which charged that not accommodating the locker room choice of one transgender student who filed a complaint with the federal agency was a violation of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.

But the lawsuit filed by Alliance Defending Freedom and the Thomas More Society, on behalf of the 73 parents and 63 students, maintains that the 1972 federal law actually authorizes schools to retain single-sex restrooms and locker rooms, and Title IX is being unlawfully redefined by the Department of Education, which has overstepped into Congress’ purview in broadening its interpretation.

“Protecting students from inappropriate exposure to the opposite sex is not only perfectly legal, it’s a school district’s duty,” said Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom. “Allowing boys into girls’ locker rooms, a setting where girls are often partially or fully unclothed, is a blatant violation of student privacy. The school district should rescind its privacy-violating policies, and the court should order the Department of Education to stop bullying school districts with falsehoods about what federal law requires.”

A spokesman said the Department of Education would provide a statement.
The struggle against the rape culture in government schools.

To View Yesterday's Posts Click on Older Posts

To view yesterday's posts or earlier posts, click on Older Posts below this entry, right below the line on the right hand side.