fox files

California Kicks Off 2019 with 1,016 New Laws

California is arguably America’s best example of the perils and pitfalls of big government. Like clockwork, the state makes national headlines for imposing increasingly restrictive measures on both individuals and businesses.

Despite the state’s longstanding policy of intervention—and its failure to produce lasting results—its lawmakers continue to expand the size and scope of government.

The latest show of big government hysteria in the Golden State is the enactment of more than 1,000 laws at the start of 2019. Outgoing Governor Jerry Brown signed 1,016 bills in 2018, and while some aim to lessen the intrusiveness of government in California, many continue to extend the arm of government further into people’s lives.

You Get a Law, and You Get a Law, and You Get a Law…

Some of the laws now in effect drew national attention when they were first signed. They include the state’s ban on plastic straws in restaurants unless a customer requests them, the requirement that restaurants list only milk, water, and other low-calorie beverages on children’s menus, and a new mandate that publicly traded companies have at least one woman on their board. (The law’s definition of a “woman” appears to include anatomical males who identify as female. According to the text of the bill: “‘Female’ means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”)

Further, California, which already enjoys the top rank in the country from the pro-gun control Giffords Law Center, enacted even more firearms restrictions. Despite the rash of headline-grabbing shootings that have occurred in the state, citizens and lawmakers alike favor tighter gun policy. Some of the new laws include raising the minimum age to own a rifle or shotgun to 21 (matching the existing age requirement on handguns), imposing a lifetime ban on most individuals convicted of certain misdemeanor domestic violence, and prohibiting firearm ownership for those treated in “designated facilities” for mental health issues more than once in a one-year period. Lawmakers are pushing for even more measures, relaunching their failed attempt to limit Californians to one gun purchase or transfer per month. Former Governor Jerry Brown rejected this legislation, but the state’s new governor, Gavin Newsom, may be more willing to support it.

In a separate realm, in addition to a number of laws targeting sexual harassment in the workplace, the same legislature passed legislation to protect Capitol workers and lobbyists who report sexual misconduct. However, they stopped short of requiring records of these incidents to be made available to the public. Another new law makes it illegal to mis-gender LGBTQ nursing home residents.

Since January 1, California government has also imposed new regulations intended to curb climate change and wildfires, including a mandate that utilities generate 60 percent of their energy—up from 50 percent—from renewable sources by 2030.

The state minimum wage rose to $12 for companies with more than 26 employees and $11 for smaller businesses (pursuant to a law passed in 2016).

Even pets are tangled up in newly enacted legislation. Retail stores are banned from selling dogs, cats, and rabbits unless they come from shelters, and in a quintessential California move, pets can now be included in divorce court custody proceedings.

It’s Not All Bad, but Mostly It Is.

To be fair, some laws have lessened the scope of government in residents’ daily lives. In one example, street vending is now subject to fewer regulations from local authorities. In another , the public now has access to internal police investigation records and footage of police-involved shootings, a move that fosters government transparency.

Despite this progress, California lawmakers’ penchant for passing intrusive legislation shows no signs of waning. Even the state’s legalization of cannabis in 2018 was hindered by the government’s excessive taxation, regulation, and bureaucracy, leading to a much smaller economic boom than other states have enjoyed upon ending prohibition.

Despite lawmakers’ ‘good intentions’ (MY ASS), also note the following as well.

California spends about $98.5 billion annually on welfare—the most in the US—but has the highest poverty rate in America.
California has the highest income tax rate in the US, at 13.3 percent, but the fourth greatest income inequality of the 50 states.

California has one of the most regulated housing markets in America, yet it has the highest homeless population in America and ranks 49th (per capita) in housing supply.

Considering the Democrats regained their super-majority in the legislature in the 2018 election, the ever-increasing expansion of the state’s government is almost certain to continue.

Let’s JUST HOPE the remainder of this country never, EVER follows suit.

>> Remarkable diversity
>>
>> Stanford College Republicans: Today, the 116th Congress was sworn in, and all day long, the media was salivating and fawning over the “remarkable diversity” of the new Democrat members. It was a day of “firsts,” we were told incessantly. It was indeed a day of many firsts. While the new Democrat majority offers many members of note, I wanted to highlight a few “firsts” who are examples of the “diversity” that was sworn in today. Here are my Top Most “Diverse” (Ridiculous) House Freshmen.
>>
>> #1. Ilhan Omar: the first person who married her brother to commit immigration fraud ever to be elected to Congress. Omar is also the first open supporter of female genital mutilation to ever be elected to Congress. Such amazing diversity!
>>
>> #2. Rashida Tlaib: One of the first Muslim Brotherhood-linked and anti-Semitic candidates to be elected to Congress. She also claims to be a “Palestinian.” Wonders never cease.
>>
>> #3. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Where do we even begin? Let’s just say she is the first person elected to Congress who lied about being from the Bronx, and thus, made up her life story. She’s also an overt Marxist, in case you forgot.
>>
>> #4. Abigail Spanberger: The first substitute teacher from an Islamist school (nicknamed ‘terror high’) ever to be elected to Congress.
>>
>> #5. Donna Shalala: Rep. Shalala was HHS Secretary from 1993 to 2001 under Bill Clinton and worked from 2015 to 2017 at the Clinton Foundation, and in 2016 she admitted in an interview that some significant Clinton Foundation donors received “courtesy appointments” in the Clinton State Department. To top it off, apparently she can’t let go of politics: at 78, she’s the oldest female House freshman in history.
>>
>> These are just a few examples of the “firsts” that the media has been celebrating today. If you are looking for corrupt politicians who show an open disdain and animosity for American principles and values, you can always count on the Democratic Party.

MOB RULE TAINTS KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION

Smithtown, New York, resident arrested for threatening two United States senators,” a Department of Justice press release advised. “Defendant left multiple threatening voice-messages for two U.S. senators regarding the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

It was just another example of unhinged craziness in a confirmation process turned into a media circus by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s minority party “leadership.” Ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein threw an 11th-hour “Hail Mary” by introducing sexual assault allegations against the justice-elect. She withheld the information for weeks until she sensed the only play she had left was to try and derail the train. The accusations came from a Democrat college professor who seemed not to remember any details from an assault she says happened 36 years earlier except she was certain Brett Kavanaugh attacked her — even though no one else who she says was present remembers it happening.

Then a second woman came out of the woodwork to accuse Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her, with the caveat she had to call her friends to jog her memory, admitting to them she could not be certain it was him. And a third — one reportedly with plenty of skeletons in her own closet — accused Kavanaugh of facilitating gang rapes. Yet again no others, including her friends, seem to know what she’s talking about.

OVERLOADED BANDWAGON

Such tenuous allegations were enough for the media and all the Democrats to jump on the #IBelieveWomen bandwagon and make “Guilty until proven innocent” the benchmark for oxymoronic “progressive justice.” I could write a whole ‘nother post on innumerable cases of false accusations and how the mandate to automatically accept a woman’s word never seems to apply to those pointing at Hillary’s hubby, but for the sake of argument, I will digress on that one at this time.

“Kavanaugh bears the burden of proof,” Editor-in-chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution Benjamin Wittes wrote in The Atlantic. “The question isn’t whether he can win confirmation — it’s whether he can defend against the charge he faces in a manner that is both persuasive and honorable.”

No. Here’s the real question:

Since when are accusations by those with the means, motive and opportunity sufficient to convict any American in the court of public opinion or anywhere else? It recalls the character Mayella Ewell from To Kill a Mockingbird, who falsely accused a black man of raping her. The burden of proof falling on an innocent, victimized defendant is what made the injustice in both cases so outrageously horrifying to people of conscience.

This is the stuff of lynchings and witch hunts. It is also the type of inflammatory rhetoric used to incite mobs. Is it any wonder, after the continual attacks from posturing Democrat leadership, main-stream media and hordes of social media bomb-tossing apparatchiks, we saw Kavanaugh lose control of his emotions? After being afforded full due process, of course …

A MIXED BAG (of nuts)

For now, gun owners are in a mood to celebrate. After all, Kavanaugh was presented to everyone by the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation as worthy of their support. But I believe he will possibly prove to be a mixed bag on guns.

“Kavanaugh argued (in dissent) that the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of most semi-automatic weapons and its registration requirement for all guns violated the Second Amendment,”

The National Review’s opinion doesn’t mean gun owners now have carte blanche to start overturning the status quo.

“Judge Kavanaugh’s text, history, and tradition methodology for Second Amendment cases will not please people who believe that all gun control is impermissible, nor will it please advocates who want to make the Second Amendment a second-class right,” attorney and author David Kopel notes. In essence, he was pointing out Kavanaugh won’t make either side completely happy.

He’ll be big on stare decisis (the doctrine of precedence in court decisions) and a damn site better than anything the Democrats would find acceptable, making him unpopular with the gun-grabbers who want it all, and a significant impediment to their agenda.

Democrats believe adding Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court makes continued Republican dominance in the legislative and executive branches a threat to be attacked using all weapons and tactics at hand. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 and has suffered serious health issues. Stephen Breyer is 80, the average retirement age for the past 11 justices. A judiciary dominated for the foreseeable future by Republican appointments is the worst nightmare for “progressives,” assuming the judges don’t become turncoats and swampers like Warren, Brennan, Burger, Souter, Stephens, et. al.

“Expect the Democrats to pull out every filthy trick in the book to try and destroy Judge Brett Kavanaugh and bring pain to him and to his family,” It’s almost entirely predictable.

What’s wasn’t predictable is what happened during last November’s midterm elections, so we’ll see if enough gun owners are motivated to keep the momentum on the High Court going or if a predicted “Blue Wave” washes away their hopes.

Expect things to get “New York state of mind” ugly either way.

JUST CLARIFYING SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE.

THIS COUNTRY DOES NOT HAVE A ‘JUSTICE’ SYSTEM.

IT’S A ‘LEGAL’ SYSTEM WITH NO ‘JUSTICE’ INVOLVED.

INFRINGEMENT ‘CREEP’ (as in small incremental increases)

WHERE AT LEAST YOU THINK YOU’RE SAFE

Have you ever wondered if those stern-looking security features currently littering the American landscape really make you safer; especially the ones that deprive you of your right to keep and bear arms by simply posting a sign? Whether you have received tons of training, the bare minimum or none, and whether you have a permit in your wallet or simply rely on constitutional-carry laws now in effect in 22 states, it all hardly matters if your rights evaporate because someone claiming power over you says, “All who enter here must be gunless.”

Ever since the World Trade Center attacks of 2001, our authorities and private-security agencies have made highly visible (and enormously expensive) efforts to help keep this nation safe — or at least to help us feel safer. They have changed the face of the nation, with security apparatuses springing up everywhere you look. You can hardly take a walk without being recorded or enter an office building without a sign-in desk between you and the elevators. School kids wear laminated neck badges, government buildings make access arduous … it never ends.

CURTAIN CALL

Few doubt that some of this work has improved our security (probably). At the same time, a good deal of the activity has simply increased the impression that we are safer without actually accomplishing any increase in real security. In other words, it is “security theater,” a phrase introduced by Bruce Schneier, perhaps the world’s leading expert in this dangerous and pervasive deception. Some of the private and official maneuvers do little more than nullify your right to carry and increase your personal risks significantly. Schneier defines security theater succinctly: “Security theater is the practice of investing in countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to achieve it.”

Moreover, many of the steps have never proven any worth or stopped any terrorists, yet are exorbitantly expensive. A research fellow writing for the Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center, Schneider says, “We need to evaluate airport security based on concrete costs and benefits, and not continue to implement security theater based on fear.”

No one has explained how the ubiquitous cameras stop jihadis from penetrating assaults with vehicles (or anything else, for that matter). Or how an ID chain deters a disturbed student from stabbing or otherwise mass-murdering classmates. And what’s to stop anyone from murdering the rent-a-guard at the sign-in book and proceeding with bloody mayhem until someone else, armed, puts a stop to it? They haven’t explained it because they can’t. It’s theater; not security. One might argue the merits, even convincingly, but the argument still stands.

FREE FALL

Make-believe “gun-free” zones are one obvious, popular and extremely dangerous element of security theater. Created by hanging signs, this fantasy is perpetrated largely by and for “progressives” and people understanding of firearms that is smaller than the Flat Earth Society’s grasp of geography. It basically changes safety from a positive ability to protect to a hoped-for reliance on the honesty of criminals and their desire to obey posted rules.

It features all The reality of a one-act play, hence the perfect name (“security theater”): “In this building, you’re protected by this sign.” In legislative settings, you’re protected by pieces of paper sanctioned by people in state capitols, wherever that may be. “No guns allowed in this park,” or whatever site they choose to write down, becomes their theatrical joke of a secure location. Too many elected representatives think such efforts actually succeed and then exercise the precise definition of insanity — they do it over and over. At a recent free-speech rally in Washington, D.C., which attracted hundreds of angry Antifa, Black Lives Matter and other far-left protesters, Police Chief Peter Newsham posted signs around the White House that The New York Times (Aug. 13, 2018, A13) likened to “a dusty Wild West town.” Each sign, posted on a lamppost, read: “All Firearms Prohibited Within 1.000 Feet of This Sign.” While it might be argued a complete absence of guns in the area would prevent gunfire, the signs were a theatrical joke in terms of making such a thing occur.

FABULOUS FLOPS

The federal ban on guns in national parks was feckless, and it was finally repealed in 2009 (H.R. 627, with statutory recognition of its unconstitutionality). Cooler heads recognized that though Democrats blindly support no-guns-in-parks statutes; it was a theatrical stunt that put decent people in danger. It empowered criminals. It favored illegal-alien smuggler “coyotes” at the borders as well as drug runners and gangsters. Perhaps worst of all, it subjected innocent people to prosecution for mere possession of their constitutionally protected property — even if they had obtained government-sanctioned paperwork.

When the ban was finally repealed by an act of Congress, and the public was free to carry in national parks under the rules of the states in which the parks were located; the media promised a parks-centered bloodbath. This never occurred. Oddly enough, neither did retractions from media outlets that promoted such ridiculously ‘hopelophobic’ mythology.

BOMBS WORK OFF AIRPLANES TOO

Consider for a moment the long lines snaking through airport gates: stay-in-formation stanchions and nylon ribbon keeping hundreds grumbling but patiently in place as you wait your turn through the metal detector, X-ray scanner, bomb sniffer, chemical wipe, facial-recognition cameras and TSA attitude-detecting agents. But it’s for “security” and your own good, and since you’re a good, obedient citizen, you obediently obey. You know “getting up-pity” can mean extra scrutiny. But what better place for a miscreant to set off a carry-on roller bag filled with Cemtex and nails or a homicide vest? Or to shoot anyone nearby who politely left their sidearms and even Swiss army knives in their cars … for safety? That’s what security theater frequently does: gives advantages to bad people, leaving little for the innocent. TSA agents know it, our security agencies know it, even the criminals and terrorists know it, and now you do too if you didn’t already. This paragraph didn’t just tip off the jihadists; this is common knowledge. Welcome to the show.

HARD TO HEAR, HARD TO TAKE
(NOW READ THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH VERY SLOWLY AND THEN THE BALANCE METHODICALLY SO IT ALL SINKS IN)

Former TSA agent Jason Harrington, who has spoken out publicly, confirmed what travelers know or suspect. Agents mock and laugh at your naked bodies, circumcisions, nipple rings —all clearly visible in scanners. They racially profile. BDOs (behavior-detection officers) and others single out blacks and fondle women. The complaints and lawsuits pile up. And scanning is easily defeated, which TSA’s own tests have proven repeatedly. He explained, according to Politico, the “everyday ridiculousness of the job … to create the illusion of security.”

The costs are beyond comprehension. Numerous studies from Cornell, ProPublica, The Association of Corporate Travel Executives, the ACLU; the U.S. Senate and many others add up in various ways: multiple arrests and firings of TSA agents for outright screening-based thefts and abuse, likely increases in cancer from screenings, financial airline losses from passengers opting to drive, increased road fatalities from increased road traffic and, of course, billions wasted on “security measures” everywhere, slowing everyone down without netting any terrorists. So many Texans innocently walked through screening with their carry pieces that the state Legislature enacted a “do-over” law so folks could peacefully leave, relieve themselves of their property and try again.

It hurts to consider, but does concealed carry sometimes contain elements of security theater too? The late-night gab about which sidearm or cartridge is best, the types of holsters you prefer, imagining how you would react to concocted scenarios — is that real or make-believe? If you only carry sometimes, to what extent are you really contributing to national defense? Or is it just a prideful sense of security when it suits you?

At its worst, you could argue security theater goes right down to the level of a bureaucrat with a uniform and clip-board who says anything like, “I’m sorry, you can’t sit there” — a bureaucrat whom you must obey, without cause or recourse, under penalty of law.

In attorney Jeff Snyder’s impeccable essay, “Walter Mitty’s Second Amendment,” he explores a fictitious nation remarkably similar to ours, where people cherish their freedoms. One by one these have disappeared, but the people cling pridefully to their right to arms, which they keep but rarely if ever use. The right to carry is incrementally removed by gun-free zones, tyrannical prosecutions for “illegal” ammo or gun types, improper display, and other non-crimes WITHOUT VICTIMS, HEAR THAT, AGAIN, WITHOUT VICTIMS, NOT UNLIKE VIRTUALLY MOST LAWS ON THE BOOKS THESE DAYS, until gun possession remains legal but virtually impossible to exercise.

But the citizens don’t care because they still believe they have their freedom (in what is no longer security theater, but theater of the absurd).

It adds new meaning to the phrase “infringement creep.”

Do know who the “Black Hebrew Israelites” are? Do you know what they stand for?

Probably not. But what you should know, is they are the ones that attacked the “WHITE” Catholic school students and then lied about what actually and truthfully happened. Did you hear from the news organizations about the “Black Hebrew Israelite’s” and what they did?

The truth is something very different from what the news organizations and celebs stated happening over the weekend. If you look at the full unedited video, NO Racist comments came out of the Catholic Students. The Students were not doing any sort of protest. They were on a school sponsored event to celebrate Martin Luther King Day. When the incident started, they were just gathering, waiting for their buses to leave. They were minding their own business.

BUT, the kids committed a mortal sin that is not allowed in this country anymore. Many of them were wearing “Make America Great Again”. This is something that the Liberal, Progressive and Radical elements in the crowd would not stand for.

The “Black Hebrew Israelite’s” started surrounding the Catholic “HIGH SCHOOL” students and yelling profanities at them. They called them Racists, Bigots, White Crackers, incest Kids and so forth.

The Indian Leader Nathan Phillips, with permission from the students teachers, started some Indian chants with the intent to drown out the profanity and help protect the students till the buses arrived in order to get the students out of there.

The high school kids were the ones being attacked simply because they were white and that several were wearing “Make America Great Again” hats.

The press gave completely MADE up and twisted reporting of the incident provided by the “Black Hebrew Israelite’s” who say they are now the Jewish descendants of the ancient Israelite’s and want the Jews out of Israel. They are EXTREME anti Semitics. This is an extreme radical group.

The young man seen in the pictures and videos facing the Indian banging the drum (as asked to do so by the Indian) was painted an Extreme Racist that had his group of High School Thugs attacking the Indians.

The HATE on the Left and the Press is SO extreme, within hours, death threats were being sent to the Catholic Students and their families.

The students did NOTHING wrong. They committed the SIN of exercising their fist amendment rights of supporting their duly elected President of the United States by wearing a HAT.

But now they have been branded and labeled, like everything today, because labels are easy to remember and create division for racist, bigots, and God knows what else, but the people who actually committed the HATE crime against them have not received any negative comments from the press.

Democrats. Start looking in the mirror every morning and think about what your movements are doing to this country. Most of you are very good, but you have to stop turning a blind eye to what your party and leaders are doing. Doing nothing, saying nothing is just as bad as the acts being committed. STOP THE HATE. BE HUMANS. STAND UP FOR THIS COUNTRY.

You should be OUTRAGED that your movements are attacking SCHOOL STUDENTS!

Something is very seriously wrong with you people.

A woman dies at age 65 before collecting one benefit check. She and her employer paid into the system for almost 50 years and she collected NOTHING. Keep in mind all the working people that die every year who were paying into the system and got nothing.

And these governmental morons mismanaged the money and stole from the system, so that it’s now going broke.

BEAUTIFUL! And they have the audacity to call today’s seniors “vultures” in an attempt to cover their ineptitude. DISGRACEFUL!

The real reason for renaming our Social Security payments is so the government can claim that all those social security recipients are receiving entitlements thus putting them in the same category as welfare, and food stamp recipients.

THIS IS WORTH THE FEW MINUTES IT TAKES TO READ AND DIGEST!

F.Y.I. By changing the name of SS contributions, it gives them a means to refute this program in the future. It’s free money for the government to spend under this guise.

The Social Security check is now (or soon will be) referred to as a Federal Benefit Payment ?

The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a “Federal Benefit Payment.”

This is NOT a benefit. It is OUR money , paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too ! It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.(This should be enough for you to forward this message, If not read on.)

If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that’s close to $180,000 invested in Social Security.

If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you’d have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved.

This is your personal investment. Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you’d receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.

That’s almost three times more than today’s average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it’s a fact). And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you’re 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.

Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did (or Lyndon Johnson).

They took our money and used it elsewhere. They “forgot”(oh yes, they knew) that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn’t have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them … and they didn’t pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently they’ve told us that the money won’t support us for very much longer. (Isn’t it funny that they NEVER say this about welfare payments?)

But is it our fault they misused our investments? And now, to add insult to injury, they’re calling it a benefit, as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. This is stealing!

Just because they borrowed the money, doesn’t mean that our investments were for charity!

We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government.

Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going for the sake of the 92% of our population who need it.

Then call it what it is:

Our Earned Retirement Income .

I have enjoyed working here these past several years.
You have paid me very well and given me benefits beyond belief.
Have 3-4 months off per year
and a pension plan that will pay my salary til the day I die
and then pay my estate one year salary death bonus
and then continue to pay my spouse my salary
with increases until he (or she) dies
and a health plan that most people can only dream of having no deductible whatsoever.
Despite this, I plan to take the next 12-18 months to find a new position.
During this time I will show up for work when it is convenient for me.
In addition, I fully expect to draw my full salary and all the other perks associated with my current job.
Oh yes, if my search for this new job proves fruitless,
I will be coming back with no loss in pay or status.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950’s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is our separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets, since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

—We don’t like re-distributive taxes, so you can keep them.

–You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

–Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.

–We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar, and bio-diesel.

–You can keep Oprah, Whoopi, Bill Maher, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all five of them.

–We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Walmart, and Wall Street.

–You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.

–We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEOs, and rednecks.

–We’ll keep Bill O’Reilly and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

–You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

–You can have the peace-niks and war protesters.

–When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

–We’ll keep our Christian values.

–You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness, and Shirley McLaine. You can also have the UN., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

–We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks, and over-sized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.

–You can give everyone health care if you can find any practicing doctors.

–We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “The National Anthem.”

–I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine,” “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing,” “Kum Baya,” or “We Are the World.”

–We’ll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle-up poverty your best shot.

–Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name, and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall

Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take George Clooney, Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Short, Charlie Sheen, Barbra Streisand, and (Hanoi) Jane Fonda with you.

P.P.S. And you won’t have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

The TRUMP Rules: Congressional Reform Act of 2018

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they’re out of office. And, no more perks go with them.

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.

Venezuela: The Proxy War that could hit closer to home.

Venezuela has been in the spotlight recently. Given the past several years of it’s economic collapse, there is division among the government and it’s people. While the country is rich in petroleum, it has been hit with sanctions. The military now tends to its crops, which is to say that the government controls the food.

There are approximately 13 main military bases in Venezuela, I’m not sure how many satellites, lilly pads, and outposts are scattered throughout the country. What I do know is that they have a formidable fighting force if they truly do stay loyal to Maduro.

George Orwell and his book titled ‘1984’

Boy did he ever get that right!