Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Tuesday, February 11, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 520)

Movements such as Ban the Box are helping ex-convicts find jobs upon their release from prison. (Photo: AP)

Movements such as Ban the Box are helping ex-convicts find jobs upon their release from prison. (Photo: AP)

The National Employment Report conducted by the payroll processing firm ADP finds 179,000 were added to private sector payrolls in July. The results top the estimate was for 170,000, while payrolls for the previous month were revised higher by 4,000 to 176,000.

“This month’s employment number falls short of the 12-month average primarily because of slowing in small business hiring,” said Ahu Yildirmaz, vice president and head of the ADP Research Institute. “As the labor market continues to tighten, small businesses may increasingly face challenges when it comes to offering wages that can compete with larger businesses.”

Last month, the ADP employment report was far more optimistic than the Labor Department jobs report conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Still, some analysts say the numbers are cooling because the U.S. economy is reaching “full employment,” an assessment most Americans flatly reject.

“Job growth remains strong, but is moderating as the economy approaches full employment. Businesses are having a more difficult time filling open job positions, which are near record highs. The nation’s biggest economic problem will soon be the lack of available workers.”

While the debate over whether the labor market is tightening to full employment, the quality of the jobs is not in debate. In July, the economy continued to create low-wage opportunities in lower-paying industries and sectors.

Goods-producing employment was down by 6,000 jobs in July after losing 28,000 the month prior. The construction industry shed 6,000 jobs after a loss of 4,000. However, manufacturing gained roughly 4,000 jobs after losing 15,000 the previous month.

Service-providing employment, which has been essentially carrying the rest of the economy, increased by 185,000 jobs in July, down from June’s 203,000 jobs. The ADP National Employment Report indicates that professional/business services added 59,000 jobs, down from June’s 78,000. Trade/transportation/utilities increased by 27,000 jobs in July, down from 41,000 jobs added the previous month. Financial activities added 11,000 jobs, following last month’s gain of 9,000 jobs.

The National Employment Report conducted by the

[brid video=”57295″ player=”2077″ title=”Donald Trump responds to President Obama’ criticism”]

Donald Trump fired back at President Obama criticizing him in a joint news conference Tuesday morning, someone unprecedented for a sitting president. Speaking with the Singapore prime minister, Mr. Obama called him “unfit” for the presidency” after what he called his “attack on a Gold Star family,” referring to the Khan family.

On “The O’Reilly Factor,” Mr. Trump said Mr. Obama is “one of the worst presidents, maybe the worst that we’ve ever had” and that Hillary Clinton “has the potential to be even worse.” To be sure, while he is well-liked and enjoys a historically high approval rating, polls show the American people do rate Mr. Obama among the worse presidents ever to serve at least in the modern era.

Donald Trump fired back at President Obama

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, left, and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, right, give economic policy speeches in Pennsylvania and Ohio, respectively. (Photos: AP)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, left, and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, right, give economic policy speeches in Pennsylvania and Ohio, respectively. (Photos: AP)

Many people dislike both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — for good reason: Both are power-hungry threats to democracy and rule of law.

But what can we do? What’s the alternative?

Fortunately, one political party wants government to have a little less power. Former governors Gary Johnson and William Weld, the Libertarian Party’s presidential and vice presidential nominee, don’t have to be smarter or more moral than Clinton and Trump (though they are) because they want to reduce the power that government has over your life.

“I want government out of your pocketbook and out of your bedroom,” says Weld in a recent Johnson/Weld campaign ad.

Sadly, the betting sites give the Johnson/Weld ticket practically no chance of winning.

Why? Most conservatives fear libertarians will weaken our defense and legalize drugs.

But Johnson/Weld don’t want to destroy our military; they just want to spend a little less. We already spend more on defense than the next seven countries combined.

Libertarians want to legalize some drugs, but drug prohibition hasn’t worked. Kids find it easier to get marijuana than alcohol. And prohibition creates vicious criminal gangs.

The left fears that libertarians will destroy the welfare state and allow rich people to get even richer. We would. But so what if some rich people get richer? Private charity will help the needy far better than clumsy government has. Since people hate politicians, why not elect ones who promise to leave you alone?

Clinton wants to raise taxes and increase regulations. Trump wants to start a trade war and give loyalty tests to Muslim Americans who are already citizens.

Clinton and Trump are so eager to do bad things that they even steal bad ideas from the other party. Hillary Clinton wants to criminalize flag-burning. Donald Trump wants to increase the minimum wage.

Democrats and Republicans each talk as if they want to protect your freedom — from the other party. They don’t show much interest in protecting you from their own parties’ failed schemes.

Johnson will get a chance to tell Americans more about the libertarian option — if he can make it into the televised presidential debates that start in September. But the private company that runs the debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates, has ruled that to qualify, a candidate must get at least 15 percent support in national polls conducted by five polling firms.

Johnson’s reached 13 percent in a CNN poll, but his RealClearPolitics.com average is closer to 8 percent. Audiences might not get to hear the alternative he offers to big government.

Gary Johnson wants the government to spend less, snoop less into people’s private lives and fight fewer wars overseas. I think many Americans want that.

I understand that the Libertarian Party probably won’t win. So, libertarians aren’t waiting for an electoral victory to lead the freest lives they can.

I recently paid a visit to an annual libertarian gathering in New Hampshire called PorcFest. Porc refers not to politicians’ wasteful and self-serving pork-barrel spending, but to porcupines, a libertarian mascot. Porcupines leave you alone, unless you attack them — and they have sharp quills for self-defense.

The people at PorcFest don’t believe in waiting for good politicians to come along. They know that rarely happens. They try to live their lives as much as possible as if government doesn’t exist.

Many carry guns for self-defense, enjoy weed without checking local laws and use digital currency instead of government-printed dollars. For the most part, local authorities tolerate it, knowing the PorcFest participants behave well and clean up after themselves.

Maybe the ultimate solution to our political mess isn’t to fight forever to make government better. That’s probably hopeless. Maybe it’s smarter to make a new beginning — just walk away from most of government. The less government there is to abuse us, the less it matters which authoritarian wins the next election.

[mybooktable book=”no-cant-government-fails-individuals-succeed” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

John Stossel makes the case against the

[brid video=”57229″ player=”2077″ title=”Did the media wrongfully politicize TrumpKhan feud”]

Rob O’Neill, the Navy SEAL who killed Osama bin Laden, said Khizr Khan “worked for the Clintons” and is in fact “part of the Clinton machine.” O’Neill was commenting on the ongoing feud between Donald Trump and Mr. Khan, who viciously attacked him on stage at the Democratic National Convention.

“They shouldn’t be politicizing it. And there was no mistake he came out for the Clintons. He’s worked for the Clintons before and there have been three presidential elections since his son was killed,” O Neill said. “They could have come out for — this is one he decided to come out for. This is part of the Clinton machine.”

Captain Humayun Khan, Mr. Khan’s son, was killed by a car bomb in 2004 while guarding a base in Iraq.

But in fact Mr. Kahn, who worked for a law firm with deep ties to the Clinton Foundation, specialized in securing E5-B visas for Muslim immigrants. Sen. Chuck Grassley has been beating the drum over the “pay-for-play” program that he says is riddled with fraud and corruption.

O’NEILL: ISIS is saying regardless of Mr. Khan the elder saying it’s a religion of peace, they are laughing at him saying, ‘it’s not a religion of peace and your son died an apostate,’ who is a non-believer, an infidel. An apostate is a better way to say it…

Mr. Khan should be saying what can we do to defeat this. He is a Muslim, Pakistani born, and all the work that he’s done in Saudi Arabia especially with bringing in migrants. We should be using people like Mr. Khan to how are we going to defeat radical Islam rather than yelling at each other back and forth.

# TRANSCRIPT #

LOU DOBBS: But that isn’t what he is focusing on unfortunately.

It is unfortunate. They shouldn’t be politicizing it. And there was no mistake he came out for the Clintons. He’s worked for the Clintons before and there have been three presidential elections since his son was killed. They could have come out for — this is one he decided to come out for.

This is part of the Clinton machine. There’s no mistake that Mr. Trump was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. He’s in the Clinton camp as well and this is how Clinton politics work as opposed to going on Hillary’s record we’re just going to how bad you are.

Rob O'Neill, the Navy SEAL who killed

Tehran-Iran-burn-flags

Iranians burn the American and Israeli flags following the announcement of the negotiated nuclear agreement in Tehran. (Photo: Hamed Malekpour)

The Obama administration is pushing back on a report claiming the U.S. gave a ransom to Iran for the release of four detains Americans in Tehran. The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday the U.S. airlifted the equivalent of $400 million to Iran this past January, just as the Americans were released by the Iranian regime.

The negotiations over the [arms deal] settlement … were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. “Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side.”

Kirby, who denied the cash transfer was done to secure the release of the four Americans, said it was the first installment paid in a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a failed 1979 arms deal dating from just before the Iranian Revolution. Officials referred to a statement released by Secretary of State John Kerry on January 17, 2016.

John-Kerry

“The funds that were transferred to Iran were related solely to the settlement of a long-standing claim at the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal at The Hague,” Kirby’s statement concluded.

However, critics not that President Barack Obama never disclosed the $400 million cash payment when he announced the Iran nuclear deal on Jan. 17 or how the $1.7 billion was paid.

The Obama administration is pushing back on

obamacare-obama-lie

President Obama depicted in front of an American flag in reference to his signature healthcare law, ObamaCare.

Based on what’s been happening, those of us who have been warning about the fiscal burden of Medicaid, Medicare, and ObamaCare could rest on our laurels and say “we told you so.” But it’s a Pyrrhic victory because being right means bad news for the country.

Earlier this year, The Hill reported some very sobering news about the ever-growing burden of health entitlements.

Spending on federal healthcare programs outpaced spending on Social Security for the first time in 2015, according to an expansive report from the congressional budget scorekeeper released Monday. The government spent $936 billion last year on health programs including Medicare, Medicaid and subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act, a jump of 13 percent from 2014, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Spending on Social Security, in contrast, totaled $882 billion, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported.

Let’s look at just one example of why the fiscal burden of health entitlements keeps growing so rapidly. According to new data, the portion of ObamaCare that expanded Medicaid is generating a torrent of new spending.

Charles Blahous is a former Trustee for Social Security and Medicare Given his inside-the-belly-of-the-beast familiarity with entitlement programs, what he’s written should be especially alarming.

The implementation of major legislation such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) often results in fiscal outcomes that differ significantly from prior projections. …Recall that the ACA considerably expanded Medicaid eligibility… It turns out that the 2015 per-capita cost of this Medicaid expansion is a whopping 49% higher than projections made just one year before. This disclosure can be found on page 27 of the 2015 Actuarial Report for Medicaid, released this July.

Here’s the chart showing how much higher per-recipient spending will be according to the new numbers.

Blahous goes through a lot of technical information to explain why the previous forecasts were so inaccurate.

But here’s the part that I think is most important to understand. ObamaCare created a free lunch for states, at least in the short run. So we shouldn’t be surprised that many states have been seduced into participating and that they’re now spending money like drunken sailors.

Basically states established far higher expenditure requirements for the expansion population than the federal government expected, by positing that beneficiaries would be in need of more health services. Why did this happen? Remember, the ACA established an initial 100% federal matching payment for state Medicaid expansion costs, contrasting with historical federal match rates that averaged 57%. Even when the feds paid 57% of the bill there was a longstanding concern that states were insufficiently accountable for their cost-expanding decisions, with much of that cost being shifted to federal taxpayers. But the ACA’s current 100% match means that states make the decisions about expanding Medicaid while the federal government picks up all the costs. Even after the ACA is fully phased in, the feds will still pay for 90%. Under such arrangements, cost overruns are predictable.

So what’s the obvious conclusion?

Having federal taxpayers pick up between 90-100% of the cost of state Medicaid expansions was one of many questionable policy decisions made in the ACA. It’s also proving to be much more expensive than the federal government expected.

Brian Blase of the Mercatus Center also has a grim assessment on the numbers.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) annual reporton Medicaid’s finances contains a stunning update: the average cost of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion enrollees was nearly 50% higher in fiscal year (FY) 2015 than HHS had projected just one year prior. Specifically, HHS found that the ACA’s Medicaid expansion enrollees cost an average of $6,366 in FY 2015—49% higher than the $4,281 amount that the agency projected in last year’s report. The government’s chief financial experts appear not to have anticipated how states would respond to the federal government’s 100% financing of the cost of people made eligible for Medicaid by the ACA. It appears that the enhanced federal funding for the ACA expansion population has led states to set outrageously high capitation rates—the amount government pays insurers—for the ACA Medicaid expansion population.

Blase points out that this goes beyond the traditional failure of bureaucrats to accurately anticipate behavioral changes when politicians give away other people’s money.

There’s also some sleazy maneuvers to funnel money to special interest groups.

…the amounts…suggest that states are inappropriately funneling federal taxpayer money to insurers, hospitals, and other health care interests through the ACA Medicaid expansion. …The health care interest groups within the states, particularly hospitals and insurers, benefit from the higher rates while federal taxpayers are left footing the bill. …Moreover, the elevated federal reimbursement rate removes the incentives for states to make sure that insurers are not overspending on providers since overpayments come at the expense of federal, not state, taxpayers.

And most of the new spending does wind up in the pockets of the interest groups.

Recent evidence that new Medicaid enrollees only receive about 20 to 40 cents of benefit for each dollar of spending on their behalf.

But even the small fraction that goes to consumers doesn’t seem to have much positive impact on their health according to one major new study.

Medicaid expansion in Oregon was not related to significant health improvements.

So what does all this mean?

ObamaCare has been a disaster. This column has been a look at how just one provision has backfired on taxpayers.

The law has been a boon to insiders and interest groups. The diversion of Medicaid money to interest groups is just one chapter in the story, sort of like the bailouts for insurance companies.

And just as bureaucrats are grossly incompetent at estimating the revenue impact of changes in tax law, they’re also grossly incompetent at predicting behavioral changes when expanding entitlement programs.

Some of us, for what it’s worth, warned about this as Obamacare was being debated.

Based on what’s been happening, those of

2016 Honda Accord.

2016 Honda Accord.

When I’m away a long time, I usually can’t wait to get home and open the door — not to the house but to the car.

Outside, hot air pounds down on all non-cactus living things. But the car sits unperturbed in the heat dome. It’s like a baked Alaska. The exterior feels like browned merengue just out of the oven. Inside it’s soft ice cream.

The A/C unit in my house takes its sweet time de-steaming the bedroom. But the climate control in the car jumps into action, rapidly pushing down the temperature to a spring-like 72 degrees. Cool jazz floats out of the speakers. All is right in these finely tuned environs. And note that the vehicle hasn’t moved an inch.

Why can’t my home sound system rival the car’s? In the house, I have to move dinky speakers around, pair them with my cellphone and hunt for the stations and music lists.

In the car, the touch-screen interface connects me seamlessly with the internet audio, Sirius XM or just plain radio. There’s also an auxiliary audio input and a USB port with external media control. Someday I’ll try it out.

The speakers are close to invisible, and there are four of them. The stereo output is 160 watts, or so I read. In sum, the sound is great, and the interior air filtration system has me breathing easy.

What am I driving, or rather, sitting in? A late-model Honda Accord, very nice though not super luxury-class. The 2015 Infiniti QX80 apparently has 13 speakers.
Taking it up a notch — several notches — is Mark Eldridge of Bixby, Oklahoma. He is a fanatical builder of custom sound systems.

Eldridge spent about 3,500 hours working on a used Dodge Intrepid stock car, creating “champion car audio,” according to a profile of him in The Wall Street Journal.
Why choose a racing car? Because racing cars don’t have a passenger seat, dashboard or center console. That frees up interior space for audio components.

Don’t ask me what all these things do, but Eldridge put a dbx signal processor behind the front seat and a 12-inch subwoofer in each kick panel. No fewer than 14(!) speakers were installed behind the dashboard. There are enough amplifiers (eight) to alarm the local zoning board.

“It’s everything I ever wanted in a car,” Eldridge said. “I can envision the musicians — drummer in back, vocals up front, guitars spaced around.”

The car can also be driven.

On a recent dog day, I found myself sitting in the Honda, A/C humming, a podcast entertaining. At a certain point, a voice in my head said, “Aren’t you going to go somewhere? This is a car, after all.”

Right. So rather than just let it run in the driveway, I decided to visit the supermarket and buy milk or something. I would have the eight minutes of pleasure going there and eight coming back and could tack on another 10 minutes parked in the lot without attracting attention. (How nice to have two illuminated “vanity mirrors” for a touch-up.)

Many car owners are apparently trading in older vehicles for newer models even when there’s nothing wrong with the drive; they want to obtain the latest in sound and better integration with mobile devices.

Automobile magazine did a “test drive” to determine the “best car audio systems.” Of the 2015 Mercedes-Benz S550, the magazine said: “Sitting in the garage with eyes closed, we immediately notice a narrow, abridged soundstage for each front passenger. Vocals and centered instruments sound…”

Such perfection would be wasted on me. I’m doing more than fine, and besides, I must eventually see what’s up in the house.

Froma Harrop on her Honda: What am

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

People often make fun of Bernie Sanders and his supporters, but with all this levity, we may be underestimating the seriousness of this political movement and what it signifies concerning our ongoing struggle for liberty.

At first, no one took Sanders’ candidacy seriously. After all, he’s an unapologetic, card-carrying socialist who would have been laughed off the political stage just a few years ago. Despite his buffoonish demeanor and style, Sanders began picking up substantial support from the beginning.

There is no question that Sanders’ competitiveness in the primaries shows how unappealing Hillary Clinton is, even among many on the left, and it could be argued that Sanders wouldn’t have fared so well against other viable Democratic candidates. I’m not so sure. Besides, are there other viable Democratic candidates? Where are they? Where were they?

No, Bernie didn’t arise in a vacuum. His far-left army isn’t merely some “Star Trek”-ish cult phenomenon. The Bern movement is just a conglomeration of the leftist malcontents who have been growing in influence in the Democratic Party since at least the George W. Bush years. At this point, people who are willing, even eager, to support a full-blown Commie are legion — and growing.

This is not surprising, given the daily onslaught of left-wing propaganda from Hollywood and the media and the relentless indoctrination in our public schools and universities. How could we expect this unanswered barrage not to produce poisonous fruit in our society, especially among young people?

Whether or not Sanders is or should be considered a laughingstock, the movement he is leading is real, and it is a sobering reminder of how far Americans have drifted from our founding principles.

Sanders’ Democratic National Convention speech would have been stunning just a few short years ago, but it was met with palpable enthusiasm on the floor. His supporters are so enthralled with his socialist ideas that they valiantly resisted even their leader’s calls for unity in supporting Clinton.

These people aren’t playing games. They are in open rebellion against the American idea and don’t bother to conceal it as Barack Obama and Clinton do. Though I am quite familiar with Sanders’ radicalism, I still felt as if I were in an alternate universe when listening to his words. Did you hear them? Did you catch the claims he was making?

The media complained about the “darkness” of Donald Trump’s speech because he was pointing out things that are wrong today — a military in decline, terrorism on the ascent, economic malaise, joblessness and a runaway national debt, among others.

If you want to describe that as dark, feel free, but are we supposed to survey the current landscape and pretend it is fine? I don’t think so. Part of the reason we are in this deplorable condition is that too many held their tongues when Obama was implementing his orchestrated national destruction.

There is nothing dark in realistic appraisals, especially when accompanied by proposed solutions designed to lift us out of this state.

What is truly dark is for Sanders, his supporters and indeed the mainstream of the Democratic Party, Obama and Clinton included, to deceitfully blame America’s problems on the uber-wealthy, Wall Street and capitalism. It is particularly rich for them to run down the status quo when Democrats have been in charge for eight years.

How does Sanders (and Obama and Clinton), with a straight face, complain about 47 million Americans being in poverty? Democrats told us Obama’s stimulus spending, his tax increases, his green energy frolics, his foray into socialized medicine, his financial reform legislation and his Robin Hood redistribution schemes would lift everyone up. They didn’t say, “We won’t promise you anything, because George W. Bush is leaving us with a big mess.”

In his speech, Sanders offered no construction solutions — only blame. He proposed nothing to unleash economic growth. He spoke nary a word about liberty. He and his comrades didn’t utter a syllable about the Islamic State group and the terrorist threat.

Sanders just complained about the unequal allocation of income in the United States. In the liberals’ dark world, America’s economic pie is finite and there is no such thing as real growth. Thus, those in charge of the government must take care of the downtrodden by transferring the income and assets of others to them, not by offering them opportunities to lift themselves up. Indeed, liberals oppose any efforts to liberate the poor from their dependency on the federal government and their entrapment in inferior inner-city schools. They adamantly oppose programs that would reduce poverty and poor-quality education, such as tax cuts, welfare reform and school choice.

The dirty little truth is that the Democratic Party proper all but embraces socialism. The only real difference among Sanders and Obama and Clinton is that Sanders is more candid about it. And theirs, my friends, is the dark vision for America — one of big government, perpetual impoverishment, diminished liberty, no borders, weakness and ineffectiveness.

Sanders and the Democratic Party are peddling the lie that their path of destruction is the fault of the wealthy and the big banks, when it is a result of their suffocation of business and entrepreneurship, their demonization and punishment of success, their outright rejection of America’s uniqueness and their policies to undo it.

Bernie Sanders is not an aberration. He is the logical extension of today’s mainstream Democratic Party, and people who still care about America’s future had better wake up soon and oppose this institutional menace.

The dirty little truth Bernie Sanders exposed

Hillary Clinton addresses the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

Hillary Clinton addresses the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

The good news is that both political conventions are now behind us. The bad news is that the election is ahead of us.

No one knows how this election will turn out but — given the awful presidential candidates in both parties — the worst case scenario may be only marginally worse than the best case scenario. National polls may suggest a close election ahead but presidential elections are not decided by who has a majority of the popular vote. In a country already divided, if not polarized, one candidate could win the popular vote and the other candidate win the Electoral College vote, which is what decides who goes to the White House. That could polarize us more than ever.

Everything may depend on what happens in the battleground states where neither party has a decisive advantage. Until recently, Hillary Clinton seemed to have a clear lead in those states. But that difference has narrowed to within the margin of error in some state polls.

Turnout is the wild card, in this election more than in most. There was booing in both conventions — and there are other signs that those who lost are not taking it kindly. How the losers vote, or stay home on election day, may determine who the winner will be.

If the Democrats lose this election, and Trump beats Hillary, it may not be anything more than losing a given election, as happens regularly, and Democrats can just regroup for the next election.

But if the Republicans lose, it can be much more serious for them and for the country. If Hillary Clinton inspires distrust, Donald Trump inspires disgust, even among many Republicans. If Trump goes down to defeat, he could taint the whole Republican party, costing them the Senate now and future elections later.

Even if Trump disappears from the political scene after defeat, his reckless, ugly and childish words will live on in innumerable videos that can be used for years to come, to taint Republicans as the party that chose such a shallow egomaniac as its candidate for President of the United States.

A President Trump could of course create a longer-lasting stigma. However, he might possibly be sobered up by the responsibilities of the presidency. But someone who has not matured in 70 years seems unlikely to grow up in the next 4 years.

With Hillary Clinton as President and Democrats in control of the Senate, she can appoint Supreme Court justices with as much contempt for the law as she has demonstrated herself, and Senate Democrats would rubber-stamp her choices.

Democrats have already shown their desire to stifle the free-speech rights of people who disagree with them on global warming and other issues. Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to have the Supreme Court reverse its decision that corporations and labor unions both have free-speech rights.

The Obama Department of Justice has already been looking into ways that anti-racketeering laws can be used to threaten individuals and organizations that challenge the global warming scenario that has been used to promote more government control of what fuels can be used.

The Second Amendment right to have a gun is at least as threatened as the First Amendment right to free speech would be if Hillary Clinton gets to pick Supreme Court justices. The lifetime tenure of federal judges means that whoever is in the White House for the next four years can change the course of American law for decades to come, losing our freedoms irretrievably.

Much has been made of Hillary’s “experience” in politics. But it has been an experience of having proved to be wrong, time and time again. As a Senator she opposed the military “surge” in Iraq that rescued that country and defeated the terrorists.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton carried out foreign policy decisions that led to major setbacks for American interests as far as the eye can see — whether in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, North Korea or China. This is the kind of “experience” we don’t need to see repeated in the White House.

Voting for an out of control egomaniac like Donald Trump would be like playing Russian roulette with the future of this country. Voting for someone with a track record like Hillary Clinton’s is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. And not voting at all is just giving up.

Nobody said that being a good citizen would be easy.

The good news is that both political

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial