Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Hell Is Getting Crowded for Liberal Hypocrites

By Clarence McKee



Democratic Seattle Mayor Ed Murray resigned Tuesday after more allegations of child sexual abuse surfaced in what is becoming a disturbing pattern of Democratic politicians involved in crimes and allegations of child sexual abuse – scandals largely ignored by the media.

 
That so-called special place in hell is getting a bit crowded.

Remember when former Secretary of State Madelyn Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at an event in New Hampshire last year, tellng the crowd that "there was a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other?" The phrase is catching on!
Ivanka Trump, speaking about the sexual abuse allegations against Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore, told the Associated Press that there’s a "special place in hell for people who prey on children . . . "
And then there is former Clinton adviser and Democratic strategist Doug Schoen who said that there was "a special place in hell" for Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who, after accepting endorsements, funding, and support from the Clintons — and assuming Clinton’s Senate seat — recently said that Bill Clinton should have resigned the presidency after the affair with Monica Lewinsky.
If Gillibrand deserved a special place in hell for being ungrateful to the Clintons, why not LaVar Ball, father of UCLA basketball player LiAngelo Ball, one of the three UCLA basketball players arrested in China for shoplifting, who were released after President Trump intervened with Chinese President Xi.
Ball said that Trump didn’t deserve any credit for getting his son and his two teammates released; and, that if he was "going to thank somebody, I’d probably thank President Xi."
Talk about ingratitude. No wonder Trump called him an "ungrateful fool."
He should talk to the family of American college student Otto Warmbier who died a few days after returning home in a vegetative state coma from North Korean detention.
As my friend Richie said, Ball’s son’s conduct shows how "horrible a job he did as a father in raising a son who grew up thinking it was okay to steal. He should be thanking the president!"
Many would argue that, if any group merits a reserved seat in that "special place," it is those feminists and left-wing women who looked the other way when any of their liberal male politicos were accused of sexual harassment or misconduct.
Silence was and is the rule!
The National Organization of Women (NOW) and other women’s groups did not go on the warpath against Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., for his philandering, including being involved in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. They were also silent during the travails of former President Bill Clinton and the many allegations of sexual misconduct including the Lewinsky affair.
 
And, note that they have not called for the resignation of Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., based on the allegations of sexual misconduct by two women.
It’s a virtual certainty that they will not call for the resignation of Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the longest serving member in the U.S. House and the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, as has his hometown paper the Detroit Free Press, for allegations of sexual misconduct. And of course, they would not dare attack or criticize a black liberal Democrat.
You can also be assured that the most vocal female members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who are so high and mighty against Trump Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., and the Democrats’ favorite diva Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., will remain silent on their Caucus colleague.
In that regard, we have not heard any outrage from the 16 female Democrats in the U.S. Senate regarding the allegations against their colleague Mr. Franken.
Those who would usually be running to the microphones and cameras to attack a conservative or Republican accused of such conduct to bolster their illusionary hopes for a chance at a 2020 nomination have run for the door — Gillibrand, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.
Of course, let’s keep in mind that feminists and liberal Democrats will tolerate almost anything from a male politician as long as he supports abortions or partial birth abortions. Enter Alabama Democratic Senate candidate and abortion supporter Doug Jones!
That’s why many would agree that they deserve that special place in hell for their hypocrisy on such an important life and death issue — the killing of innocent, unborn children.
Finally, as we enter the home-stretch on tax reform, we will see how many Senate Republicans will deprive the nation of over-due and well-deserved tax reform to foster economic growth and job creation.
To those who do, there will be a special kind of place for them, maybe not in the hell as discussed above, but in every politician’s form of hell — defeat at the ballot box.

Clarence V. McKee is president of McKee Communications, Inc., a government, political, and media relations consulting firm in Florida. He held several positions in the Reagan administration as well as in the Reagan presidential campaigns. He is a former co-owner of WTVT-TV in Tampa and former president of the Florida Association of Broadcasters.
________________

Playboy Ethics, Puritan Consequences in the Year of Sex Scandals

 
 
2017 may go down as the year that sexual scandals rocked America.

The thing about a charge of rape, said 17th century British judge Sir Matthew Hale, is that it ‘‘is an accusation easily to be made and hard to be proved, and harder to be defended by the party accused” — even if that party is innocent. It is an excruciating dilemma. Most such crimes occur in private. And yet false charges are also sometimes made. How do we give proper due process to the accused while showing compassion to victims?
But one thing that troubles me about all this is that Hollywood and the culture do so much to promote an immoral sexual ethic.
Pop music and movies and TV routinely promote sex outside of God-given marital boundaries. Then when someone engages in these activities, especially if they want to run for office, they are besmirched by this.
I think what we are seeing in some ways is this: Playboy ethics, but Puritan consequences. We are constantly bombarded with messages to do whatever feels good. Then if someone does it, he suddenly faces censure.
We teach young people today how to put condoms on cucumbers in schools, but then we frown at teenage illegitimacy.
The pop culture revels in sexual immorality. In one of her songs, Madonna croons, “If it’s against the law, arrest me. If you can handle it, undress me.”
Not to be outdone, Lady Gaga sings, “But I got a reason that you're who should take me home tonight. I need a man that makes it right when it's so wrong.”
We routinely see sex outside of marriage on the big screen and the little one. In 1995, Don Wildmon, of the American Family Association, complained that 88 percent of sexual activity in prime-time television was between unmarried people — thus, making “lust more attractive than love.”
If it was that bad in 1995, it’s only worse in 2017 — since marriage as a whole continues to suffer significantly in our culture.
Of course, just because we’re bombarded with these messages doesn’t excuse anybody from giving into his or her base nature or from making unwanted sexual advances.
One of the sacred cows of the Playboy ethic on sex is that anything goes as long as it’s between two consenting adults. But the “consenting adults” principle still doesn’t halt the consequences of promiscuity, such as a failed marriage, a broken heart, venereal disease, or scandal.
Why do we have the Puritan consequences to sexual practices? I believe our forebears were on to something with their belief that sex was to remain within its God-given strictures: inside the bounds of holy matrimony (of course, between a man and a woman). When we venture outside of God’s boundaries, we go against the order He designed for our safety and flourishing.
We may mock monogamy all we want, but interestingly, a major study on sex in America in 1992, under the auspices of the University of Chicago, found that the Puritan-type ethic of sex promotes happiness in the bedroom to its adherents.
They reported, “Once again contradicting the common view of marriage as dull and routine, the people who reported being the most physically pleased and emotionally satisfied were the married couples .... The lowest rates of satisfaction were among men and women who were neither married nor living with someone — the very group thought to be having the hottest sex” (Sex in America, p. 124).
The Bible admonishes us to avoid even the appearance of evil. So tell me — why is it that some in our culture were wagging their tongues at Vice President Mike Pence for refusing to go out in public alone with women that weren’t a part of his immediate family?
This culture encourages you to freely let your libido flow — but then when you do, you might end up being punished for it. Playboy ethics, Puritan consequences. But as Jesus put it, let him who is without sin, cast the first stone.

Jerry Newcombe is co-host/senior TV producer of Kennedy Classics. He has written/co-written 25 books, including "The Book That Made America, Doubting Thomas" (with Mark Beliles), "What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?" (With D. James Kennedy), and "George Washington's Sacred Fire" (with Peter Lillback).

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Charlie Rose fired by CBS, PBS and Bloomberg over sexual misconduct allegations

By Daniella Silva and Kalhan Rosenblatt


Talk show host and journalist Charlie Rose was fired Tuesday by CBS News, PBS and Bloomberg in the wake of eight women accusing him of sexual harassment and unwanted advances in a report in The Washington Post.

"A short time ago we terminated Charlie Rose's employment with CBS News, effective immediately," said a statement posted to Twitter from CBS News President David Rhodes. "This followed the revelation yesterday of extremely disturbing and intolerable behavior said to have revolved around his PBS program."
In a statement, PBS also announced it had ended its relationship with Rose, whose self-titled interview show began airing in 1991.
"In light of yesterday’s revelations, PBS has terminated its relationship with Charlie Rose and cancelled distribution of his programs. PBS expects all the producers we work with to provide a workplace where people feel safe and are treated with dignity and respect," PBS said.
Bloomberg TV confirmed it had severed ties with Rose, but had no further comment as of Tuesday afternoon.
The claims made against Rose, 75, in The Post's report included groping female acquaintances and walking around naked in their presence. The women were either employees at the "Charlie Rose" show or aspired to work for the show in allegations spanning from the late 1990s to 2011, according to the newspaper. Three women were on the record and five were anonymous.
Two of the women The Post interviewed, Kyle Godfrey-Ryan and Megan Creydt, confirmed their accounts to NBC News on Monday night.
Early Tuesday, "CBS This Morning" co-host Gayle King said she was "really grappling" with the accusations against the veteran newsman, calling them "horrible."
"He doesn't get a pass because I can't stop thinking about the anguish of these women; what happened to their dignity, what happened to their bodies, what happened to maybe even their careers," King said. "I can't stop thinking about that and the pain they're going through."
King and co-host Norah O'Donnell said they had not spoken to Rose as of Tuesday morning, but planned to reach out.
"I'm still trying to process all of this," King said. "I'm still trying to sort it out because this is not the man I know, but I'm also clearly on the side of the women who have been very hurt and very damaged by this."
Rose on Monday released a statement apologizing for his behavior while maintaining that some of the allegations were inaccurate.
“In my 45 years in journalism, I have prided myself on being an advocate for the careers of the women with whom I have worked,” Rose said in a statement to The Post that he later posted on Twitter. “Nevertheless, in the past few days, claims have been made about my behavior toward some former female colleagues.”
"It is essential that these women know I hear them and that I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior,” the statement continued. “I am greatly embarrassed. I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken."
Rose has long hosted his show, which airs on PBS, and is also a co-host of "CBS This Morning" and a contributing correspondent for "60 Minutes."
By Monday evening, representatives from CBS News said Rose was suspended while they looked into the matter, while representatives from PBS and Bloomberg said they were suspending distribution of his show.
"I have learned a great deal as a result of these events, and I hope others will too," Rose said in his statement. "All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives."
The five women who spoke to The Post on condition of anonymity did so over fears of Rose’s stature in the media industry.
A woman who was one of Rose’s assistants during the mid-2000s, Kyle Godfrey-Ryan, told The Post that Rose allegedly walked naked in front of her at least a dozen times while she was working in one of his homes in New York City. She also said Rose called her repeatedly late at night or early in the morning to ask her about her sex life and describe a “very specific, repetitive fantasy” of her disrobing and swimming naked in a pool at his suburban home in Bellport, New York, as he watched. She was in her early 20s at the time.
“It feels branded into me, the details of it,” Godfrey-Ryan told the paper.
The Post said that in addition to the eight women, the newspaper spoke to about two dozen former employees of Rose on condition of anonymity and that six said they had seen what they considered to be harassment, and eight said they were not comfortable with the host’s treatment of his female employees.
Another 10 said they had not witnessed or heard anything concerning about Rose, according to The Post.
The women ranged in age from 21 to 37 at the time of the alleged incidents, according to The Post.
Rose's show was produced by independent television production company Charlie Rose Inc., aired on PBS and was filmed at Bloomberg headquarters. PBS, CBS and Bloomberg told The Post they had no record of sexual harassment complaints against Rose.
A PBS spokesperson said the channel "does not fund this nightly program or supervise its production, but we expect our producers to provide a workplace where people feel safe and are treated with dignity and respect."
Two women who spoke to The Post said they had complained to Rose's executive producer, Yvette Vega, about the alleged inappropriate behavior.
Vega said in a statement to The Post that she should have stood up for the women.
"I failed," said Vega, 52, who has worked with Rose since the show was created in 1991. "It is crushing. I deeply regret not helping them."
_________________

She Said A Powerful Congressman Harassed Her. Here’s Why You Didn’t Hear Her Story.


Alex Wong / Getty Images
Michigan Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat and the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, settled a wrongful dismissal complaint in 2015 with a former employee who alleged she was fired because she would not “succumb to [his] sexual advances.”
Documents from the complaint obtained by BuzzFeed News include four signed affidavits, three of which are notarized, from former staff members who allege that Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the powerful House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly made sexual advances to female staff that included requests for sexual favors, contacting and transporting other women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, caressing their hands sexually, and rubbing their legs and backs in public. Four people involved with the case verified the documents are authentic.
And the documents also reveal the secret mechanism by which Congress has kept an unknown number of sexual harassment allegations secret: a grinding, closely held process that left the alleged victim feeling, she told BuzzFeed News, that she had no option other than to stay quiet and accept a settlement offered to her.
“I was basically blackballed. There was nowhere I could go,” she said in a phone interview. BuzzFeed News is withholding the woman’s name at her request because she said she fears retribution.
Last week the Washington Post reported that Congress’s Office of Compliance paid out $17 million for 264 settlements with federal employees over 20 years for various violations, including sexual harassment. The Conyers documents, however, give a glimpse into the inner workings of the office, which has for decades concealed episodes of sexual abuse by powerful political figures.
The woman who settled with Conyers launched the complaint with the Office of Compliance in 2014, alleging she was fired for refusing his sexual advances, and ended up facing a daunting process that ended with a confidentiality agreement in exchange for a settlement of more than $27,000. Her settlement, however, came from Conyers’ office budget rather than the designated fund for settlements.
Congress has no human resources department. Instead, congressional employees have 180 days to report a sexual harassment incident to the Office of Compliance, which then leads to a lengthy process that involves counseling and mediation, and requires the signing of a confidentiality agreement before a complaint can go forward.
After this an employee can choose to take the matter to federal district court, but another avenue is available: an administrative hearing, after which a negotiation and settlement may follow.
Some members of Congress have raised major concerns with the current system over the years, but the calls for an overhaul have grown louder in the post-Weinstein era. Members have argued that 90 days is too long to make a person continue working in the same environment with their harasser; that interns and fellows should be eligible to pursue complaints through this process; and that it is unfair for a victim to have to pay for legal representation while the office of the harasser is represented for free by the House's counsel.

In this case, one of Conyers’ former employees was offered a settlement, in exchange for her silence, that would be paid out of Conyers’ taxpayer-funded office budget. His office would “rehire” the woman as a “temporary employee” despite her being directed not to come into the office or do any actual work, according to the document. The complainant would receive a total payment of $27,111.75 over the three months, after which point she would be removed from the payroll, according to the document.
 

The draft agreement viewed by BuzzFeed News was unsigned, but congressional employment records match the timing and amounts outlined in the document. The woman left the office and never went public with her story.
The process was “disgusting,” said Matthew Peterson, who worked as a law clerk representing the complainant, and who listed as a signatory to some of the documents.
“It is a designed cover-up,” said Peterson, who declined to discuss details of the case but agreed to characterize it in general terms. “You feel like they were betrayed by their government just for coming forward. It’s like being abused twice.”
Other lawyers named as representing the accuser could not be reached for comment. The Office of Compliance did not confirm or deny that it had dealt with the case.
“Pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act, the OOC cannot comment on whether matters have or have not been filed with the office,” Laura Cech, publications and outreach manager of the Office of Compliance, told BuzzFeed News in an email when asked to comment on this case.
Two staffers alleged in their signed affidavits that Conyers used congressional resources to fly in women they believed he was having affairs with. Another said she was tasked with driving women to and from Conyers’ apartment and hotel rooms.
Rep. Conyers did not admit fault as part of the settlement. His office did not respond to multiple requests for comment on Monday.
The documents were first provided to BuzzFeed News by Mike Cernovich, the men's rights figure turned pro-Trump media activist who propagated a number of false conspiracy theories including the “Pizzagate” conspiracy. Cernovich said he gave the documents to BuzzFeed News for vetting and further reporting, and because he said if he published them himself, Democrats and congressional leaders would “try to discredit the story by attacking the messenger.” He provided them without conditions. BuzzFeed News independently confirmed the authenticity of the documents with four people directly involved with the case, including the accuser.
In her complaint, the former employee said Conyers repeatedly asked her for sexual favors and often asked her to join him in a hotel room. On one occasion, she alleges that Conyers asked her to work out of his room for the evening, but when she arrived the congressman started talking about his sexual desires. She alleged he then told her she needed to “touch it,” in reference to his penis, or find him a woman who would meet his sexual demands.
She alleged Conyers made her work nights, evenings, and holidays to keep him company.
In another incident, the former employee alleged the congressman insisted she stay in his room while they traveled together for a fundraising event. When she told him that she would not stay with him, she alleged he told her to “just cuddle up with me and caress me before you go.”
“Rep. Conyers strongly postulated that the performing of personal service or favors would be looked upon favorably and lead to salary increases or promotions,” the former employee said in the documents.
Three other staff members provided affidavits submitted to the Office Of Compliance that outlined a pattern of behavior from Conyers that included touching the woman in a sexual manner and growing angry when she brought her husband around.
One affidavit from a former female employee states that she was tasked with flying in women for the congressman. “One of my duties while working for Rep. Conyers was to keep a list of women that I assumed he was having affairs with and call them at his request and, if necessary, have them flown in using Congressional resources,” said her affidavit. (A second staffer alleged in an interview that Conyers used taxpayer resources to fly women to him.)
The employee said in her affidavit that Conyers also made sexual advances toward her: “I was driving the Congressman in my personal car and was resting my hand on the stick shift. Rep. Conyers reached over and began to caress my hand in a sexual manner.”
The woman said she told Conyers she was married and not interested in pursuing a sexual relationship, according to the affidavit. She said she was told many times by constituents that it was well-known that Conyers had sexual relationships with his staff, and said she and other female staffers felt this undermined their credibility.
“I am personally aware of several women who have experienced the same or similar sexual advances made towards them by Rep[.] John Conyers,” she said in her affidavit.
A male employee wrote that he witnessed Rep. Conyers rub the legs and other body parts of the complainant “in what appeared to be a sexual manner” and saw the congressman rub and touch other women “in an inappropriate manner.” The employee said he confronted Conyers about this behavior.
“Rep. Conyers said he needed to be ‘more careful’ because bad publicity would not be helpful as he runs for re-election. He ended the conversation with me by saying he would ‘work on’ his behavior,” the male staffer said in his affidavit.
The male employee said that in 2011 Conyers complained a female staffer was “too old” and said he wanted to let her go. The employee said he set up a meeting in December 2011 to discuss “mistreatment of staff and his misuse of federal resources.” The affidavit says that Conyers “agreed that he would work on making improvements as long as I worked directly with him and stopped writing memos and emails about concerns.”
Another female employee also attested that she witnessed Conyer’s advances, and said she was asked to transport women to him. “I was asked on multiple occasions to pick up women and bring them to Mr. Conyers['] apartment, hotel rooms, etc.”
BuzzFeed News reached out to several former Conyers staffers, all of whom did not want to speak on the record. One former staffer, who did not want to be named, said she was frustrated by the secretive complaint process.
“I don’t think any allegations should be buried...and that’s for anyone, not just for this particular office, because it doesn’t really allow other people to see who these individuals are,” said the former staffer. “When you make private settlements, it doesn’t warn the next woman or the next person going into that situation.”
Another staffer said Conyers’ reputation made people fearful to speak out against him. Aside from being the longest-serving House member and the ranking member of a powerful committee, Conyers is a civil rights icon. He was lauded by Martin Luther King Jr. and is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
“Your story won’t do shit to him,” said the staffer. “He’s untouchable.”
In a statement to BuzzFeed News, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said she was not aware of the settlement.
“The current process includes the signing of non-disclosure agreements by the parties involved. Congresswoman Jackie Speier has introduced legislation that will provide much-needed transparency on these agreements and make other critical reforms,” Pelosi said in the statement. “I strongly support her efforts.”

BuzzFeed News; Source: Office of Compliance

"Speaker Boehner was not aware of this," Dave Schnittger, a spokesperson for John Boehner, told BuzzFeed News in an email Tuesday. Boehner was the speaker of the House when the settlement was made.
Speaker Paul Ryan's called the story "extremely troubling" in a statement the morning after the story broke.
"A Committee hearing last week examining this issue led to a new policy of mandatory training for all members and staff," Ryan said. "Additional reforms to the system are under consideration as the committee continues its review. People who work in the House deserve and are entitled to a workplace without harassment or discrimination.”
The documents also show that there was a belief among at least some staffers that the office was a jealous environment. Some of the documents allege Conyers offered his protection when staff would complain to him about management in the office.
 
Nicholas Kamm / AFP / Getty Images

Rep. Jackie Speier speaks during a House Administration Committee hearing on preventing sexual harassment in the congressional workplace, November 14.
California Democrat Rep. Speier and colleagues in the House and Senate have introduced legislation that would overhaul the complaint process, including requiring the Office of Compliance to publicly name the office of any member who enters into a settlement. The bill would also allow complainants to waive mediation and counseling, set up a victims' counsel, and require all congressional offices to go through harassment training every year.
Conyers’ office has a history of ethical run-ins. In 2016, his former chief of staff Cynthia Martin pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property after she refused to reimburse $16,500 that was mistakenly deposited in her account. A preliminary investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics found that Conyers continued to pay Martin more than $13,000 per month when she was supposedly on unpaid leave.
In 2006, two former aides complained that Conyers made them babysit his children, run errands, and work on his reelection campaign while drawing their congressional salaries. There was also a bizarre incident in 2005 when 60 Thanksgiving turkeys, given to his staff to disperse to people, may have gone missing.
Conyers’ wife, former Detroit city councilor Monica Conyers, was sentenced to three years in prison over bribery charges in 2010. (One of the documents alleged Conyers began “aggressively acting out his sexual harassment behavior” following this.) Last year the couple renewed their vows. 

Monday, November 20, 2017

Black Politicians and White Liberals Use Poor Blacks as Tools for The Leftist Hate-America Agenda

By Walter E. Williams


When hunting was the major source of food, hunters often used stalking horses as a means of sneaking up on their prey. They would synchronize their steps on the side of the horse away from their prey until they were close enough for a good shot. A stalking horse had a double benefit if the prey was an armed person. If the stalkers were discovered, it would be the horse that took the first shot.

That's what blacks are to liberals and progressives in their efforts to transform America -- stalking horses.

Let's look at it.

I'll just list a few pieces of the leftist agenda that would be unachievable without black political support.
Black people are the major victims of the grossly rotten education in our big-city schools.
The average black 12th-grader can read, write and compute no better than a white seventh- or eighth-grader.
Many black parents want better and safer schools for their children.
According to a 2015 survey of black parents, 72 percent "favor public charter schools, and 70 percent favor a system that would create vouchers parents could use to cover tuition for those who want to enroll their children in a private or parochial school."
Black politicians and civil rights organizations fight tooth and nail against charter schools and education vouchers.
Why?
The National Education Association sees charters and vouchers as a threat to its education monopoly. It is able to use black politicians and civil rights organizations as stalking horses in its fight to protect its education monopoly.
The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was the nation's first federally mandated minimum wage law.
Its explicit intent was to discriminate against black construction workers.
During the legislative debate on the Davis-Bacon Act, quite a few congressmen, along with union leaders, expressed their racist intentions.
Rep. Miles Allgood, D-Ala., said: "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."
American Federation of Labor President William Green said, "Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates."
The Davis-Bacon Act is still law today.
Supporters do not use the 1931 racist language to support it.
Plus, nearly every black member of Congress supports the Davis-Bacon Act.
But that does not change its racially discriminatory effects.
In recent decades, the Davis-Bacon Act has been challenged, and it has prevailed.
That would not be the case without unions' political and financial support to black members of Congress to secure their votes.
Crime is a major problem in many black neighborhoods.
In 2016, there were close to 8,000 blacks murdered, mostly by other blacks.
In that year, 233 blacks were killed by police.
Which deaths receive the most attention from politicians, civil rights groups and white liberals and bring out marches, demonstrations and political pontification?
It's the blacks killed by police.
There's little protest against the horrible and dangerous conditions under which many poor and law-abiding black people must live.
Political hustlers blame their condition on poverty and racism -- ignoring the fact that poverty and racism were much greater yesteryear when there was not nearly the same amount of chaos.
Also ignored is the fact that the dangerous living conditions worsened under a black president's administration.
There are several recommendations that I might make.
The first and most important is that black Americans stop being useful tools for the leftist hate-America agenda.
As for black politicians and civil rights leaders, if they're going to sell their people down the river, they should demand a higher price.
For example, if black congressmen vote in support of the Davis-Bacon Act, they ought to demand that construction unions give 30 percent of the jobs to black workers.
Finally, many black problems are exacerbated by white liberal guilt.
White liberals ought to stop feeling guilty so that they can be more respectful in their relationships with black Americans.

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Oops: A Liberal Attack on the GOP Tax Plan Accidentally Proves How Many People Would Benefit From It

By Guy Benson


As you've already read, the GOP-led House of Representatives passed a tax reform bill yesterday, with relative ease.  Zero Democrats supported the measure, which nonpartisan scorekeepers say would benefit middle class Americans.  

Thirteen Republicans voted no, almost all of whom represent high-tax blue states; the bill partially eliminates the federal deduction for state and local taxes, which disproportionately benefits those who live in places like New York and California -- effectively insulating them from the consequences from electing tax-and-spend liberals.  

While there are legitimate quibbles about certain elements of the legislation, it represents enormous progress as an across-the-board tax cut, coupled with long-awaited simplification.

Brackets are consolidated, income tax rates are slashed for nearly all taxpayers (excluding millionaires), and the tax code is made more competitive for many small businesses and corporations.  


Independent analyses have found that the proposal would (a) result in net tax reduction for average taxpayers and households across all five income groups, including middle-income families, (b) create nearly one million new, full-time American jobs, and (c) boost US economic growth.  The average household of four people, based on national median income, would save nearly $1,200 on their tax bill next year.  Democrats are predictably denouncing the plan as "tax giveaways to the rich," which is what they always, say no matter what (reminder: "the rich" pay more than their fair share of taxes already), but the data tells a different story:


_____________



Chart based on Tax Foundation's nonpartisan analysis of House GOP's reform bill shows after-tax income would rise across *all* income groups, on average. As a % of income, lower & middle income earners benefit more than the very rich:
_______________

 
Even the liberal Tax Policy Center's analysis -- which found that the benefits aren't as middle-class centric --
determined that "the legislation would reduce taxes on average for all income groups in 2018 and 2027" (emphasis mine).  A USA Today column that's largely critical of the Republican plan -- making the case that some families and businesses would be hurt by the proposal -- does allow that there would be some "winners" under the legislation.  Buried at the bottom of the piece, the would-be beneficiaries are listed.  This is the first bullet point:
________________
 
 _____________
 
Guy Benson

USA Today column mostly attacking GOP tax reform plan includes a buried bullet point on 'winners' under the proposal. This describes *70%* of taxpayers, a number that's expected to rise to ~90% if the standard deduction is roughly doubled. That's a LOT of winners.

_____________

That's right: About 70 percent of all US taxpayers currently take the standard deduction, which would approximately double under the House-passed bill.  So right out of the gate, the vast majority of American taxpayers already stand to benefit from the bill.  
Analysts predict that if the standard deduction increases dramatically, the percentage of filers who claim it (i.e., eschewing itemizing) will rise to the ballpark of 90 percent.  
A liberal activist on Twitter objected to my argument above, reasoning that some number of the new additions to the standard-deduction-taking ranks would still be worse off than they would be under the current system.
I replied by thanking him for confirming that at a minimum, somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of all Americans will be winners under the Republican proposal, and that's without considering the time and money-saving benefits of radical simplification.  The cost of tax compliance and preparation runs in the tens of billions each year.
As for Democrats' railing against corporate tax cuts, the US corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrialized world, and even President Obama favored lowering it.  Democrats were for job-creating corporate tax relief before they were against it.  
Another argument you'll hear from the Left is that (at least under the Senate bill) the reductions for businesses are permanent, whereas they're temporary for families.  But that assumes Congress would allow a huge tax hike on the middle class when the new provisions are set to expire.  
As we saw under Obama, the overwhelming majority of the Bush tax cuts were renewed.  Democrats do not have the political will to raise taxes on working families, even though that's what would be required to even partially pay for their single-payer healthcare scheme.  (It's no wonder the idea has 
In other words, if tax cuts are scheduled to sunset in order to allow the legislation to pass muster within the budget rules, that potential sun-setting will only come to fruition if a hypothetical future Democratic Congress chooses to raise middle class taxes through inaction.  
Would they dare?
I'll leave you with with this process observation about House leadership's big success, followed by Speaker Ryan's floor speech in support of the bill (his detailed policy defense starts around the 2:30 mark):
________________
 


Republican-held House has been borderline ungovernable for years. Passing this bill so quickly and easily is a stupendous achievement
 ___________