by Political Editors:  One of the greatest benefits of living in the U.S. is the constitutional protections of individual rights and freedoms that all Americans enjoy. But it is precisely those individual rights and freedoms that place limits on officials within government. The Left views such limits to government as socially problematic rather than beneficial. Witness the growing sentiment among college and university students who are actively questioning the value of freedom of speech — not only questioning it, but even calling for it to be prevented, with violence if necessary. For these social “justice” crusaders, individual freedom should always be subservient to collectivist “progressive” values.

          It is in such a climate as this that one of the primary Demo/MSM propaganda fronts, The New York Times, is promoting communism (overtly this time), in a series of praise articles including, “When Communism Inspired Americans,” “Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism” and “The Little Red Book for Children.” This series, highlighting the “glory days” of communism, omits references to the countless millions of civilian men, women and children who were murdered or starved under these regimes.
          The latest entry in this series purports to portray how women fared under Red China’s communist regime, asserting, “The communist revolution taught Chinese women to dream big.” When it was not slaughtering them and their children, that is. It praises China’s former totalitarian strongman Mao Zedong for his efforts in promoting feminism. The author, Helen Gao, is an American of Chinese descent, and she writes glowingly of her grandmother’s opportunity to work as a journalist during the early days of the “People’s” Republic. A brief side note here. To have been a journalist at that time in China, Gao’s grandmother would have been obligated to spout Communist Party propaganda without freedom of the press protections Gao herself enjoys here in the good old U.S.A. But we digress.
          Seeking to somehow dispel the obvious objections readers might raise regarding her willingness to praise the vision and efforts of a murderous tyrant responsible for the deaths of 45 million of his own people, Gao quotes her grandmother’s saying, “The communists did many terrible things, but they made women’s lives much better.” There — problem solved. Noting the absurdity, one humorist responded, “NYT next week: For all its flaws, Hitler’s Nazi movement brought healthy vegetarian meal planning to the Reich.” Except, of course, the NYT doesn’t like to highlight that the Nazis were also socialists.
          Notably, this latest example of the NYT’s communist dezinformatsiya campaign comes in the midst of nuclear threats from Red China’s nuclear puppet — NoKo’s communist nut Kim Jong-un. Move on, nothing to see here!  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51535

.

by Louis DeBroux:  With Republicans set to announce a tax cut blueprint later today, it provide an opportunity to look at tax reform in a way that far too few politicians, of either party, take time to consider. Yet it would be immensely beneficial to working Americans.

          Based on the rumors flowing out of DC in recent weeks, the arguments are the same as they have been for decades. How big will the tax cuts be? Who benefits? Who loses? How will we pay for it? That last one is especially rich coming from the likes of Democrat Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA), who lectured, “It’s time to stop pretending that tax cuts for the wealthy somehow pay for themselves. Tax reform needs to be paid for.” Discerning minds might contemplate the absence of concern from Peters and his fellow Democrats when they were racking up $10 trillion in new debt during the liar-nObama years.
          There is also the implied premise in Peters’ question of how tax cuts will be “paid for.” To claim a tax cut is a “cost” that must be paid for, one must believe that all earnings rightfully belong to the government, rather than to the individual who earned that money.
          Yet while we debate these political questions, or the relative wisdom of the economic philosophies of Milton Friedman versus Paul Krugman, none of these address the issue from a constitutional perspective. What is the purpose of taxes, and on what may they be legitimately spent? Those two questions are intimately entwined.
          The purpose of taxes is to fund the legitimate functions of government, but how do we determine what is legitimate? Luckily, the Founders clearly defined those legitimate functions in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and in Amendments IX and X declared that all powers not specifically granted in A1S8 to be reserved to the states, or to the people. With the Constitution as our standard, it becomes clear that an enormous portion of federal spending — from Medicare, Medicaid, liar-nObamaCare, corporate welfare, the arts, etc. — are not justified.
          But, you say, these things are for the “general welfare,” referenced right there in the Constitution. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rebuked this erroneous idea just five years after the ratification of the Constitution. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, Madison wrote, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” This same refutation of an expansionist view of the General Welfare clause was likewise refuted by Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and Noah Webster.
          The 16th Amendment, which allowed government to levy an income tax, was passed using class warfare as a catalyst. Americans were promised that only the uber-wealthy would be hit by the tax, and only on a small percentage of their income. Today, nearly every American who works is subject to the tax, and has to hire an expert to navigate a tax code that clocks in at five times the length of the King James Bible. Does that sound like how free men are treated, or subjects? The passage of the 17th Amendment essentially eliminated representation for the states in Congress, and the size of the federal government has exploded as a result.
          More than half a century ago, former IRS Commissioner T. Coleman Andrews warned of the perniciousness and insidiousness of the income tax — how it is a tenet of Marxism, and strips us of our God-given, constitutionally protected rights. He cautioned, “The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be assessed is concerned. Please remember that under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100% of our income anytime it wants to.”
          If we were operating under the vision of the Founders, we would identify the legitimate functions of government, define a budget required to carry out those functions, and tax accordingly. Instead, the income tax has become a tool of power distribution and social engineering.
          And yet we must start somewhere, and the Republican plan to reduce the tax burden of the average American is as good a starting point as any. The current bill proposes to cut $1.5 trillion in taxes over the course of the next decade, offsetting the “cost” of the tax cut with anticipated higher tax revenues as the economy expands.
          However, tax cuts in and of themselves will not solve America’s fiscal woes, because the problem driving our national debt is not lack of revenue, but excessive spending. Government spending, which was already gargantuan prior to Barack liar-nObama taking office, metastasized under liar-nObama, who vastly increased spending with the “stimulus” bill and then used those numbers as the new budget baseline. That is how we got to $20 trillion in debt from $10 trillion just 10 years ago.
          The U.S. has the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, though favored corporations pay far less, and the individual income tax is a drain on family finances, leaving millions struggling just to make ends meet. Thus we have a system in which the likes of GE pays little or nothing, while the struggling small business owner pays 39% — the highest individual rate.
          A reduction in tax rates — both corporate and personal income — would be a huge boost to American workers and families. With pressure put on Democrat senators in states won by Donald Trump, tax reform is indeed possible, and would be a much needed win for a Republican Party that controls all levers of government and yet seems incapable of implementing its agenda.
          While eliminating the income tax is too much to hope for at this point, reduced rates and simplification of the tax code would bring welcome relief and stimulate the economy. The time is now.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51519

.

by Lewis Morris:  Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore sailed to victory last night over incumbent Sen. Luther Strange in Alabama’s special Senate election primary runoff. The race was called shortly after the polls closed, with Moore beating Strange 57% to 43%. Vote counters estimated a low turnout with around 15% of eligible voters coming out for the election. But it’s far more important than that indicates — it’s a marker in estimating President Donald Trump’s hold on the GOP.

          Strange was appointed to the Senate seat by former Gov. Robert Bentley in February after Jeff Sessions left it to become attorney general. It was thought at the time that Strange would hold the seat until the next general election in 2020, but politics threw him a curve. Bentley was removed from office after it was discovered he was using state funds to hide an affair. Lt. Gov. Kay Ivey replaced Bentley and called for a special election in December.
          Strange, a former state attorney general who’d pushed to suspend impeachment proceedings against Bentley, bore the marks of the latter’s corruption. He soon found himself in a crowded primary battle with eight other Republicans. When no one emerged from the primary with a majority of the vote, the top two finishers, Strange and Moore, squared off.
          The primary and the runoff, as with all special elections, was framed by some as a referendum on President Donald Trump, but more so it was one on the “establishment.” Trump was vocal in his support of Strange, and he made an appearance in Alabama on his behalf during the campaign. Vice President Mike Pence also turned out for Strange. Strange, in turn, has been a loyal supporter of Trump in the Senate — a reliable conservative vote.
          What may have fatally wounded Strange, however, was that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also voiced support for him in the runoff and provided $9 million from the Senate Leadership Fund for Strange’s campaign. Moore used this support from the leadership as a means of attacking Strange and linking him to what he called “DC’s slime machine.” It worked.
          Moore had some heavy-hitting support of his own during the race. Among those who came out for his campaign were Chuck Norris, Sarah Palin and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. Bannon’s entry into the fray on behalf of Moore suggested that this race was going to be a proxy fight between competing visions of the GOP’s future. Just who represented what was grounds for widespread speculation, and the Trump haters (who hate Bannon even more, if that’s possible) were giddy at the possibility of this election leading to a civil war within the Republican Party.
          They ended up being disappointed. News of Moore’s victory last night led to a congratulatory tweet from Trump. Bannon even asserted that Moore’s victory was a victory for Trump, even though the president openly supported Strange.
          Moore is perhaps best known for his refusal in 2003 to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama state courthouse while serving as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. His defiance of the federal court order cost him his job, but he won it back in 2013, only to lose it again three years later for ordering judges not to issue same-sex marriage licenses. On Monday, Moore demonstrated his support for the Second Amendment by drawing his gun at a campaign rally, a move that left Democrats with a case of the vapors. Few can question Moore’s conservatism and his dedication to principle. Some have wondered, though, if Moore will be able to play well with others in the Senate should he win the general election in December. His conservative credentials will serve the Republican agenda well, but his maverick style could do the opposite by adding more chaos to the unpredictable political climate.
          Moore will face former U.S. attorney Doug Jones in the general election on Dec. 12. Jones won the Democrat primary in August. A win for Moore is crucial for Republicans. They have a majority with just 52 seats, and we already know that this isn’t enough to keep two or three rogues from blocking their own party’s agenda.
          Moore has in his favor the fact that Alabama is a solid GOP state that has elected Republicans to the U.S. Senate continuously since 1997. In Sessions’ last election as senator in 2014, he ran unopposed. Trump won the state last year with 62% of the vote. This last fact could be pointed to as a reason for Republicans to be optimistic, yet cautious, given Trump’s volatility with the electorate. Democrats are sure to make the race about him, and it can be expected that they will nationalize the race. It could be a long wait until December.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51524

.

by Political Editors:  With support for the Graham-Cassidy liar-nObamaCare overhaul effort eroding, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was forced to cancel this week’s planned vote. This now marks the third straight failure for Senate Republicans in their attempt at repealing — or really doing anything with — liar-nObamaCare. But this news come as no surprise since the writing was on the wall after Sen. RINO-John McCain announced that he would vote against the bill. Sen. RINO-Susan Collins was the one who pulled the plug.

          Of course this doesn’t end the cascading problem that is liar-nObamaCare, and Democrats know it. They vigorously pushed to save the disastrous “Affordable” Care Act and are now pushing Republicans to join them in “fixing it.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck clown-Schumer recently said, “Instead of trying to cut health care, we Democrats are ready, willing and eager to work to improve our health care system.”
          Getting a majority of Republicans on board a Democrat “fix it” plan will be a tall order since Republicans know that the law is flawed beyond repair. As Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) stated, “I think there are a number of [Republicans who] are going to be very hesitant to try and put more money into a system that they are convinced is going south.”
          But for Republicans, liar-nObamaCare will remain a thorn in their side. Up next on the agenda is tax reform, which now will have to account for the ballooning cost of the ACA. Republicans had the opportunity to set the budget around a law they created, but now they will be beholden to a law they campaigned on removing. The ugly truth is the GOP is now stuck with liar-nObamaCare — there is no ignoring it and moving on.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51526

.

 

by John J. Bastiat:  “We know Iran has already violated parts of the [nuclear] agreement. … They’re not just walking ‘up to the line’ on the agreement: They’re crossing the line at times.” —National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster

          In the wake of his recent comprehensive review of U.S. policy toward Iran, President Donald Trump ably demonstrated he “gets it.” Referencing his future stance on the Iran nuclear deal brokered by his not-ready-for-primetime predecessor, President Trump hinted to reporters last week at the United Nations General Assembly, “I have decided. I’ll let you know what the decision is.” The president has often slammed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that is, the so-called “Iran Deal.” That deal is also more appropriately termed a “treaty” — unless of course you’re Barack liar-nObama and don’t want the Senate involved in ratifying it. Thus, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to infer Trump’s decision won’t favor Iran.
          That’s certainly more than can be said for the previous decision oozing out of the executive branch, which traded Iran’s unverifiable “promise” to “limit” its development of nuclear weapons in exchange for the blanket lifting of crippling economic and political sanctions. In other words, as envisioned and executed during the liar-nObama regime, Iran got a free pass. That ended last week.
          Correctly labeling the fatally flawed agreement for what it is, in his address to the UN General Assembly the president branded JCPOA as “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the U.S. has ever entered into” and “an embarrassment to the U.S.” (Other than that, it’s a great agreement.) The president further warned that the status quo could have grave consequences: “We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles, and we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program.” These words are welcome and overdue.
          Ending this raw deal for America is more than justified. As National Security Advisor and retired Gen. McMaster noted, Iran routinely violates even the overly generous terms of the current agreement. Although the administration did — reluctantly — certify this quarter’s compliance by Iran with JCPOA, the move seems, at the least, to be a political timing piece, not an affirmation that things are “jiggy” with a nation whose stated goal is to wipe Israel “and its allies” (read: us, a.k.a. “The Great Satan,” in Ayatollah-speak) “off the face of the earth.” Sure: Who wouldn’t want to enter a deal with a country like this? In any case, we wouldn’t advise optimism on certification next quarter (deadline October 15th). Some media sources claim ending JCPOA could trigger diplomatic upheaval with the five other nations, including China and Russia, that were involved in negotiating it, but so what? Ruffled “frenemy” feathers are nothing new or abnormally threatening to the U.S., while a nuclear-tipped Iran is.
          Moreover, Iran shows no signs of changing its evil ways. Responding to Trump’s UN address, Iran dragged its usual “death to them all” diplomacy up from the gallows to give a fresh stink-eye to the rest of the civilized world. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani flatly declared that any ideas about renegotiation are dead on arrival. He also stated that “the Iranian people deserve an apology” from Trump, since he labeled their government a “murderous regime.” An apology? Since when does truth-in-diplomacy about, well, a murderous regime warrant an apology — especially to the people suffering under it?
          As Trump further noted, “The Iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy.” As has been documented in myriad articles on countless occasions, Iran is also one of the world’s leading state sponsors and exporters of terrorism. More recently, it colluded with North Korea to co-develop both countries’ ballistic nuclear weapons programs, while simultaneously giving the middle finger to International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear facility inspectors. Iran restricted and even denied inspectors’ access to facilities that must be inspected to certify compliance with the JCPOA.
          Then, last weekend, Iran test-fired another long-range ballistic missile as a figurative shot across the bow.
          The only way to deal with rogue regimes such as these is to speak in the one language they all understand: Power. Iran must be made to understand that relief on likely soon-to-be-re-imposed sanctions is directly tied to its conduct, and that bad conduct means no relief — or even tighter sanctions. A good first step in that direction is to decertify Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA.
          As U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley noted, “If the president chooses not to certify Iranian compliance, that does not mean the United States is withdrawing from the JCPOA. If the president finds that he cannot certify Iranian compliance, it would be a message to Congress that the administration believes either that Iran is in violation of the deal, or that the lifting of sanctions against Iran is not appropriate and proportional to the regime’s behavior, or that the lifting of sanctions is not in the U.S. national security interest, or any combination of the three.”
          In other words, decertification doesn’t end JCPOA; it simply gives the U.S. more leverage than it currently has. That’s at least a small first step in the right direction.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51495