Batinick believes tax increases will worsen outmigration, lead to recession

Batinick believes tax increases will worsen outmigration, lead to recession

by Glenn Minnis | Sep 12, 2018

 Rep. Mark Batinick

Rep. Mark Batinick (R-Plainfield) doesn’t mince words when assessing the impact he thinks a proposed statewide property tax hike would have on Illinois.

“I think it would send the state into another recession,” Batinick told the Will County Gazette. “It will send more people scurrying for the border and exacerbate the outmigration problem we’re already experiencing.”

 Mica Freeman

Economists for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago recently proposed a plan that would have Illinois residents paying roughly 50 percent more in property taxes over the next 30 years as a way of paying off the state’s still-growing pension debt.

The DuPage Policy Journal has reported the plan would increase annual taxes on a home valued at $500,000 by approximately $5,000.

“It’s a horrific idea,” said Batinick, who is running for re-election in the 97th District against Democrat Mica Freeman. “By steadily raising property taxes, we’re taking equity from people’s biggest asset and what many of them have planned to retire on. It’s a desperate act to all the bad policy we’ve had coming out of Springfield that has put this state in this predicament to begin with.”

At 2.67 percent of a home’s value, Illinois homeowners already pay the highest property tax rates in the country, according to the Illinois Policy Institute (IPI).

Batinick laments that the tax increases might not end there, as Ford, Lake, Kane, Frankfort and Will counties will all have a referendum on the ballot this November asking voters to weigh in on a proposed 1-percent sales tax increase.

In Will County, much of the added windfall is pegged for local school districts, with more than a dozen schools already signed onto the referendum, IPI states. The hike would leave many Will County residents saddled with an overall tax burden in the same ballpark as the 10.25 percent rates in Chicago, home to the highest combined sales tax rate in the country.

In Frankfort, the sales tax rate would jump from 7 percent to 8 percent.

“Hopefully this election will prove that people have had enough of the governing of (House Speaker Mike) Madigan,” Batinick said. “Hopefully, they’re ready to hold lawmakers accountable for doing what needs to be done.”

The 97th District includes all or parts of Oswego, Plainfield, Troy and Wheatland.

Escaping a crowd safely

Escaping a crowd safely 

A quick note up front...

I will get to the subject of this article, but first, please bear with me as I give the background as to how I got to the importance of having the skills to exit the chaos of a crowd in a safe manner. Thank you.

I recently concluded the Amazon series Jack Ryan that follows the popular Tom Clancy character as he journeys across the globe, fighting terrorism. Aside from my personal interest in fictional accounts depicting action, suspense and adventure, the series served as a reminder to me that we still live under the threat of terrorism. It also reminded me of a recent situation where a potential threat was neutralized.

Even though we tend to recognize the failures of organizations like the Transportation Security Administration, there are still patriots hard at work to defend the United States against all of our enemies. The results of this work are not always popular enough for the news media to report on such activities, so I did not see this particular account covered:

Members of the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force raided the Sacramento County, California, apartment of Omar Abdulsattar Ameen on Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2018. This action was driven by a sealed 94-page long indictment aimed at fulfilling the requirements of extradition treaty obligations between the United States and Iraq.

The indictment details Ameen’s work with terrorist cells in Iraq that started in 2004 and ultimately led to close ties to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of al-Qaida in Iraq which was the vicious predecessor to the Islamic State. Ameen is further described as a terrorist himself and leader of al-Qaida forces that were instrumental in the capture and execution of soldiers. He is also listed as a military and finance leader of al-Qaida groups that were specifically located in Iraq’s Anbar province. This area borders Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (all sources of terrorists and terrorism activity). It is also the location of the cities of Ramadi, Fallujah and Haditha that were all locations of major fighting and terrorist activity in the Iraq War.

To answer the question of how Ameen ended up in the United States...

He was granted refugee status on June 5, 2014, by the United States under the Obama administration’s Iraq Refugee Program after he fled to Turkey in 2012. He was resettled to the United States in November 2014.

To make things even better, federal authorities believe that Ameen is not alone and that there are an potentially several hundred individuals from terror groups in the Middle East and North Africa that are now residing in the United States.

The information above was provided in part by AlertsUSA.com (I have no affiliation with them, I simply appreciate the information they share with their subscribers).I personally participated in the hunt for Zarqawi and I remember what a huge deal it was and the profound number of resources that were put toward finding this particular terrorist. To discover that a close associate of his was hanging out in sunny California is disheartening to say the least.

On a side note, I am surprised that he was not protected by the state with a cry that some obscure sanctuary law covered him.

Thinking about the threat of terrorism and reflecting on some of the scenes depicted by the Jack Ryan storyline, I began reasoning with myself about the realities of what would happen if I found myself around the scene of an act of terrorism. My first realization is that I will have to survive the crowd of people around me because an act of terror is not carried out unless the goal of causing hysteria and panic can be achieved. Therefore, there is the need for a crowd and the associated threat of such.

The power of a crowd can be almost unimaginable. Every year there are events held across the world that result in injuries and deaths as a result of a crowd that either panics or gets out of control. These experiences are traumatic in a physical and psychological sense as a crowd stampedes over the bodies of other humans. These types of events are usually planned. Imagine what it might be like surrounding an act of terrorism.

Herd Mentality (AKA Mob Mentality or Pack Mentality) — The adoption of certain behaviors as influenced by others on an emotional basis and not rationality.

This is a great term to ponder when talking about crowds and how they can quickly get out of control based on the actions and mentality of a few people.

Know before you go

I would venture to say that most of the times that you have found yourself in a crowd, you knew that you were going to be in or around that crowd. There is always the chance that this is not the case, but it seems like it would be the exception rather than the rule.

With this in mind, consider visiting the site ahead of time so that you are familiar with it or, at a minimum, take a look at the site using a mapping application where you can see the details of the site from the perspective of a satellite.

Points of entry and exit

One of the key elements of safety around crowds is surveying the scene early and often, specifically where the points of entry and exit are. There are documented cases where events have had single points of entry and exit which, following a source of panic or crazed moment, led to members of the crowd being crushed. This highlights an area that special attention should be given to when around a crowd; how can you get in and out and are there multiple avenues of ingress and egress. Single points of entry and exit should be avoided at all costs.

Aside from entry and exit points, being aware of what is happening around you and in other parts of the crowd can assist you in spotting potential threats and being able to respond early on if there is an emergency of some type.

Crowd survival tips

Bottom line up front... if you start to feel uneasy when you are in a crowd, that is the time to leave. Don’t wait for something to happen or get worse to make your exit. Get to a safe place and then re-evaluate your situation. There is always the possibility of going back to where you were if nothing comes to fruition.

One of the world’s leading experts on crowd control, Paul Wertheimer, offers these tips for surviving the chaos of a crowd:

• Stay on your feet.
• Conserve energy — don't push against the crowd and don't yell or scream.
• Use sign language to communicate with those around you (point, wave, even use your eyes).
• Keep your hands up by your chest, like a boxer — it gives you movement and protects your chest.
• If you're in danger, ask people to crowd surf you out.
• If someone extends their hand for help, grab hold to keep them up. (From his experience, he says that crowds tend not to panic, they tend to be heroic and compassionate.) I’m not sure that seems true but he is the expert.

He also mentions that leaving a different way than you came in may be the best available option if you need to leave a crowd quickly. Specifically that people’s natural urge is to exit the way you came in because it is familiar but that using an alternative exit may be quicker because fewer people are trying to use it.

Another authority on crowds, John Fruin, who was a research engineer with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey helped start crowd studies in the United States. Here is what he has to say about crowds:

At occupancies of about 7 persons per square meter, the crowd becomes almost a fluid mass. Shock waves can be propagated through the mass sufficient to lift people off their feet and propel them distances of 3 m (10 feet.) or more. People may be literally lifted out of their shoes and have clothing torn off. Intense crowd pressures, exacerbated by anxiety, make it difficult to breathe.

Some people die standing up; others die in the pileup that follows a “crowd collapse,” when someone goes down, and more people fall over him. “Compressional asphyxia” is usually given as the cause of death in these circumstances.

That doesn’t sound very good at all.

I would say the key takeaway of this all is that situational awareness is the best tool at your disposal if you find yourself in a crowd of people. Secondary to that, consider placing yourself in the periphery of the crowd in you must be there. Lastly, conduct a risk versus benefits analysis to determine if you really need to place yourself in a crowd from the start.

Why Support Fricilone and Balich Fundraiser / Actions not just talk are important.

• Actions

Some of what Mike Fricilone & Steve Balich have ACCOMPLISHED for you 1. Lowered the tax rate the last 3 years while at the same time building a New Public Safety Building, Court House, Health Department, and starting a program to replace squad cars on a yearly basis. 2. Stopped code violations initiated by aerial Photos. Code violations are now complaint driven. 3. Reduced the tax rate for the last 3 years. 4. Stopped mandatory sprinkler systems from being required in all homes. 5. Passed a Resolution allowing the Court to return your money for towing, storage, and administration if not guilty in court. 6. Stopped the County from putting raised barriers on 143rd St. 7. Continue to vote against raises for County wide and County Board elected officials. 8. Stopped light ordinance that had no measurements relying on the opinion of Code officers as to what is a nuisance. 9. Argue that code inspectors can only inspect what a permit was written for. They don't have the right to write violations for other items out of code. 10. Worked with Lockport to move barricades north of Gougar and 147th, allowing for cars to cut through like the past from 151st over to Lemont Rd/State via 147th. A signal was placed at Gougar and 143rd. 11. Worked with Citizens Utility board to reduce the rate increase from Illinois American Water. The Rate increase was reduced but we still got an increase to an already high cost of water. 12. Voted to not allow County Board Elected Officials to take the IMRF Pension. 13. Worked to get the light at RT. 6 and Parker. 14. Stopped Will county Land Use from initiating a rental inspection program targeting 17,000 plus landlords based on HUD guidelines. Will County never adopted HUD guidelines. 15. Stopped requiring a building permit for some repair and maintenance items on your property. 16. Cut the Tax Rate at the Forest Preserve the last 4 years while expanding recreational opportunities. 17. Since we have be on the Board there have been no pay raises for County Elected officials and County Board member Pensions were eliminated. Fricilone & Balich never took the Pension even though it was a benefit. Mike Fricilone 708-310-9831 mikefricilone@gmail.com    Steve Balich 815-557

Abortion advocates blast Rauner for not signing pledge to protect taxpayer-funded abortion

Abortion advocates blast Rauner for not signing pledge to protect taxpayer-funded abortion

·         By Cole Lauterbach | Illinois News Network

·         Jul 10, 2018

Personal PAC CEO Terry Cosgrove says Gov. Bruce Rauner can't be trusted to defend abortion protections Rauner himself signed into law.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Abortion advocates blasted Gov. Bruce Rauner at a news conference Tuesday morning for failing to sign a pledge to protect a controversial bill that allows taxpayer money to be used for abortions.

Personal PAC President Terry Cosgrove took Rauner to task at the event in Chicago, the morning after President Donald Trump announced his latest Supreme Court pick. Personal PAC is a political action committee focused on electing candidates who support abortion rights.

Cosgrove said that the governor hasn’t signed a pledge sent to him by Personal PAC stating that he would protect the law as it is under House Bill 40. Rauner signed HB40 into law last year, upsetting conservative supporters.

The bill allows for taxpayer money to pay for abortions through Medicaid and state employee healthcare plans.

“The truth is, if re-elected, Gov. Rauner has proven he can’t be trusted to protect legal abortion in Illinois, unless the voters of Illinois have a written promise that if re-elected he won’t do anything to repeal, diminish or amend HB 40,” Cosgrove said.

Cosgrove and others at the news conference said that Rauner’s failure to sign the pledge they gave him was enough to drop him in favor of Democratic challenger, J.B. Pritzker, who signed the pledge.

Rauner faced political backlash for his decision on HB40. Anti-abortion Republicans across the state lashed out at the governor for signing the bill after promising not to engage on controversial social issues. Rauner also had previously said he would veto the measure. Rauner gave similar assurances to Cardinal Blase Cupich, the cardinal has said.

Rauner responded to questions about Personal PAC's criticism later that day.

"I signed legislation here in the state of Illinois so that womens' reproductive rights are protected regardless of what happens at the federal level," he said. 

The news conference came the morning after President Donald Trump announced his nomination to replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy with Washington D.C. federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh, signaling a possible shift to the right in the political dynamics of the nation’s highest court.

During the debate on HB40, lawmakers warned that the bill was necessary in the event that Roe v. Wade was overturned. Trigger language in the law would take effect should that happen, ensuring access to abortion is still enshrined in Illinois law.  

Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen doesn’t believe Russian election interference favored Trump

From Personal Liberty

President Donald Trump’s Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Thursday echoed President Donald Trump’s insistence that Russia did not seek to aid his White House bid in 2016 — a claim directly contradicting the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment of the Kremlin’s election interference, according to an article published by New York Daily News.

From the article:

“I haven’t seen any evidence” that Russian meddling was intended to help Trump, Nielsen said during an interview with NBC News’ Peter Alexander at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado.

Nielsen’s stunning claim comes days after Russian President Vladimir Putin said outright he wanted Trump to beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because he believed the political neophyte’s policies would be more friendly to the Kremlin.

Nielsen said she had not seen any evidence that Russian hackers’ intentions were “to favor a particular political party.”

Daily News then tells us that the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency released a “damning report” in January 2017 that outlined the Kremlin’s clear favoritism for Trump. But what Daily News fails to mention is that the sum of that interference claimed by the intelligence community involved spending some $250,000-$300,000 on ads on Facebook and “propaganda” from Trump operatives appearing on the Russia-sponsored RT news service.

More from the article:

It’s not the first time that Nielsen has claimed she wasn’t aware of Russia’s love of Trump.

In May, she said she was unaware of intelligence assessments concluding that the Kremlin was clearly playing favorites.

Nielsen on Thursday attempted to clarify her remarks, saying that Russia’s efforts against the 2016 election were to “attack certain political parties … more than others.”

When pressed by Alexander, she said she agreed with the intelligence community’s assessment “full stop.”

“I agree with the intel community’s assessment full stop — any attack on democracy, which is what that was, whether it is successful or it is unsuccessful, is unacceptable,” Nielsen said.

The DHS chief also admitted that Russia still poses a threat, especially in the upcoming midterm elections.

“I think we would be foolish to think they’re not. They have the capability, they have the will. We’ve got to be prepared,” she added.

Despite two and a half  years of claims – and searches both high and low — that Russia helped to elect Trump and Trump somehow colluded with Russia, no concrete evidence has yet been delivered by the intelligence community or the mainstream media that such a thing occurred.

This entry was posted in Election Informer, Hot Topics and tagged Donald Trump, Election 2016, Russiagate. Bookmark the permalink.

Theft comes in many forms

By Bob Livingston

Theft comes in many forms. The most obvious occurs when a thug sticks a gun in your face or a knife in your back and demands you hand over your wallet or when a burglar enters your property and absconds with your valuables while you are away. It also happens much more covertly. A person or a business may commit fraud. One of the greatest fraudsters of all was Bernie Madoff. His scheme made Charles Ponzi’s look like penny-ante poker. Ponzi offered investors an opportunity to earn profits of 50 percent to 100 percent by buying discounted postal reply coupons in other countries — primarily Italy — and redeeming them at face value in the United States. Like all pyramid schemes, promised profits materialized for initial investors. Because of that — along with a favorable article about his scheme printed in the Boston Post — new investors were flocking to his door at such a pace that he was raking in $250,000 a day. But he was paying initial investors with money from his new ones. The scheme collapsed, costing his “investors” $20 million ($237 million in today’s dollars). Madoff’s scheme involved computer programs creating phony trades and manipulated account statements. He later told investigators that he was depositing client money into a bank account rather than investing it and paying clients who wanted to cash out with money from the new deposits. Estimates of his total fraud range from $17 billion to $65 billion, depending on who is estimating. Government/banker paper money (now mostly computer symbols) is just another Ponzi scheme, a system of organized theft. Paper money/credit was created to transfer wealth to the government/banker establishment without payment. Every new dollar put into circulation dilutes your dollars and your imagined savings. But the process is so slow. When coupled with a steady saturation of propaganda about our high-sounding democracy, few people ever catch on. The crowd has been dumbed down. Even most bank employees don’t understand they are engaged in theft. They, like most of the rest of Americans, don’t understand and they don’t care as long as they have bread and circuses. Fractional reserve banking is a government-approved Ponzi scheme. Banks hold only a fraction of your money in an account, and they do not have reserves on hand to cover all the debt owed them by their customers and all the savings customers have deposited. In other words, banks are bankrupt, except for their ability to “create” money. Here’s how the Federal Reserve explains it: The fact that banks are required to keep on hand only a fraction of the funds deposited with them is a function of the banking business. Banks borrow funds from their depositors (those with savings) and in turn lend those funds to the banks’ borrowers (those in need of funds). Banks make money by ch… Here is what else the Fed says about reserve requirements: Reserve requirements are the amount of funds that a depository institution must hold in reserve against specified deposit liabilities. Within limits specified by law, the Board of Governors has sole authority over changes in reserve requirements. Depository institutions must hold reserves in the for… Those reserve amounts are set by complicated formulas depending on the net transaction amounts of the bank in question. Based on the formula, a new bank can open with a small amount of invested capital, have zero net transaction accounts (no money on deposit) and immediately “lend” up to $9.3 million by simply creating new money on a computer. In a column he wrote in 1995, the late economist and author Murray N. Rothbard explained a bank’s operation this way: I set up a Rothbard Bank, and invest $1,000 of cash (whether gold or government paper does not matter here). Then I “lend out” $10,000 to someone, either for consumer spending or to invest in his business. How can I “lend out” far more than I have? Ahh, that’s the magic of the “fraction” in the frac… So let’s say that you borrow $200,000 at 5 percent interest on a 25-year note from the bank mentioned above (the one with no money on deposit) to buy a house. You make a monthly payment of $1,169.18 to the bank in the form of your mortgage payment. By the time you have paid off your loan, you have paid the bank a total of $350,754.02. In other words, the bank has now profited to the tune of $350,000 from you on money that never existed. And should you have defaulted on your loan, not only would you have lost whatever money you had paid prior to the default, the bank would own your home outright through a repossession. The Federal Reserve (which is neither a federal agency nor does it hold any reserves) works this way, by “lending” money to other banks, through either a mark on a ledger sheet or by computer transfer. Real money never changes hands. But rather than create actual wealth (except for themselves), central bankers, as money creators, always destroy the currency. This is inflation. Inflation is not rising prices, which most people are led to believe. Rising prices are a symptom of inflation, not the cause. Inflation is an expansion of the money supply, i.e., the creation of money out of thin air. So how does inflation steal your wealth? It is the perfect crime. It is as simple a concept as supply and demand. With more money chasing fewer goods, more and more money is required to make a purchase. And if you put your money in a certificate of deposit in the bank that pays less interest than the rate of inflation, then your bank savings lose money. It is like pouring water into milk. The more water you pour, the less milk is left. Everyone is hurt, particularly those on a fixed income. The more money that is spewed out, the more worthless each one of those paper dollars is. In the past 100 years, the dollar has lost 96 percent of its value. Put another way, it now takes more than $25 to buy what would cost $1 in 1913. Since your pension or Social Security comes in U.S. dollars, what happens during a period of hyperinflation as we certainly expect to occur as a result of the massive Fed money-printing adventure? It loses value because it is nominal dollars, not real money (dollars) like precious metals. Social Security represents a “debt” of the federal government. Governments get rid of “debt” by inflating it away (printing more money). In short, the government can and will kill the Social Security liability by inflating it away. Ditto for savings. A study of monetary history shows that hyperinflated currency destroys the purchasing power of savings accounts and Social Security. That is why I recommend you preserve your labor, your savings and retirement with gold and silver in your possession. Precious metals don’t pay interest, you say? This is conventional thinking backed by the paper money myth. Gold and silver are the only real money in existence. They are real money as well as intrinsic wealth. Moreover, gold and silver appreciate in purchasing power as paper money depreciates. That is your real interest. All understanding of hard money has been lost down the memory hole of the fiat paper world money regime. Look at it this way. If you had taken two silver half dollars and a $1 bill in 1964 and placed them in a box for safekeeping, what would they purchase today? With the silver coins you could buy about $12 worth of goods or services, say seven gallons of milk or six loaves of bread. With the dollar you could buy only $1 worth of goods. So which is real money? I love my country, but I hate my government. I know that my government and my country have been stolen by the money creators.

Democratic socialism – the new name for slavery

By Bob Livingston

Democratic socialism – the new name for slavery 

The political philosophy of democratic socialism is ascendant in the Democrat Party, even though no one seems to know what it is or be able to explain it beyond "free stuff."

As Senator Bernie Sanders challenged the witch from Chappaqua for the Democrat nomination in 2015, some media outlets sought to get an explanation of social democracy or democratic socialism from him. His explanation fell short, according some political science professors.

"When you call your fire department or the police department, what do you think you're calling?" Sanders babbled to the crowd in one of his stump speeches. "These are socialist institutions."

"If he were to write this on an exam for me? That's an F," Andrei Markovits, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan, said.

Nor is the latest darling of the movement, 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez any better at telling us what she believes beyond basic platitudes of "free stuff" for everyone.

When asked by "The View's" Meghan McCain whether the future of the Democrat Party is socialism, Ocasio-Cortez responded:

First of all, there's a huge difference between socialism and Democratic socialism. Democratic socialism, and really what that boils down to me, is the basic belief that I believe that in a moral and wealthy America and a moral and modern America, no person should be too poor to live in this country.

That vacuous response is all it took for the biddies in the audience to erupt in cheers and applause worthy a sport team's championship victory. And perhaps that's what it is, because there is no substance at all to what she said... it's all bread and circus.

No less than the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tom Perez, called Ocasio-Cortez the "future of our party." And Sanders insists Democrats can't win 2018 midterms without him and a push for "universal health care, tuition-free public college, [and] a $15-an-hour minimum wage."

So what is democratic socialism? Samuel Goldman, an assistant professor of political science at George Washington University says it is "achieving collective control of the economy."

The previously-mentioned Professor Markovits said democratic socialism is an attempt to create, "a property–free, socialist society."

Making the rounds on social media is a meme that purports to explain it that seems to coincide with Goldman's and Markovits' description:

A Democratic Socialist is not a Marxist Socialist or a Communist. A Democratic Socialist is one who seeks to restrain the self-destructive excess of capitalism and channel the Government's use of our tax money into creating opportunities for everyone. Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically – to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. A Democratic Socialist does not want to destroy private corporations but does want to bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business more accountable.

Perhaps someone should send this meme to Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders. At least they wouldn't sound like blithering idiots when pressed to describe their belief system.

Now when we look closely we see that democratic socialism is nothing new after all. It's merely an old system with a new name. It's the addition of the code word "democratic" to the old system of collectivism – previously called national socialism (Nazism), communism and Marxism – in order to put lipstick on a pig.

But even this is not new. Hitler referred to his National Socialism as "the great democracy." Nazism or National Socialism was only a generic form of collectivism exactly as Italian Fascism, Russian Communism or American democracy.

What's that you say Bob? That's right, both socialism and democracy are anathema to human liberty. Democracy is an esoteric belief system that manipulates the people in such a way that all power flows to the state. As with pure dictatorships, power flows from the top down.

Democracy implies freedom in the public's mind while power and wealth is constantly channeled to the federal government. Human liberty is regressively crushed under the one simple word, "democracy."

Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and their ilk see their fight as one between capitalism and something else, with their something else being a form of mob rule collectivism. They falsely believe – or at least claim to believe -- that America is a capitalist society. It's not, and hasn't been for 150-plus years.

Capitalism is a social system in which an individual's rights, including his rights to own property, are recognized and all property is privately owned. In a capitalistic society, governments acknowledge that individuals and companies can and should compete for their own economic gain, and the prices of goods and services are determined by the free market. The role of government in capitalistic societies is to ensure that markets function without interference and to protect individuals from fraud and/or the use of physical force by others.

What we have is crony capitalism or corporatism, which is a form of fascism. It's a marriage of business and government that involves government passing legislation and enabling federal alphabet soup regulatory agencies to create rules favorable to certain businesses and unfavorable to others. Congressweasels pass tax laws to encourage and discourage behaviors – exactly what democratic socialists are advocating.

Like all statists, democratic socialists want to grow government to solve a problem created by government, and to do so under cover of mob rule (the vote).

Socialism is a philosophy of envy. When one sees something another has and decides he wants it, rather than earn it on his own merits he wants the power of government to take it and either give it to him or redistribute it to the masses. Often the socialist doesn't want that something for himself as much as he doesn't want someone else to have it.

Socialism is also a philosophy of racism, weakness, ineptitude and collectivism in that it assumes one gained what he has by way of special privilege not afforded everyone if they are of a different race or creed or social standing; and that one cannot obtain a thing or advance economically without the assistance of government or the collective.

Manipulating minorities who are naturally drawn to socialism is a basic political strategy to justify government politics and plunder.

Who are minorities? They are, of course, the racial minorities. But there are a whole lot more than that. There are homosexual minorities, feminine minorities, so-called "civil rights" minorities, cultural minorities and all the minorities that make up the "diversity" of the nation.

Democratic socialism is a disguised system of stealing the wealth and production of the producers of wealth with spurious laws under the legitimacy of the vote. Stealing or taking from producers and transferring it to nonproducers is very sophisticated and concealed class warfare.

Democratic socialism is anathema to human liberty and is a concealed form of slavery.

However, it's naïve and wholly inaccurate to ascribe this philosophy only to Democrats. Almost all politicians, Democrat and Republican, embrace socialism in many forms.

Always remember: The government has nothing good or nice to give to you. The government is in the business of shrinking freedom (and wealth), not expanding it.

Socialism is by no means limited to a political system. The definition of socialism under any masquerade is the pseudo-morality of groupism over the individual.

All political power is derived from this. This definition must be understood.

Immigrants — or Refugees?

Immigrants — or Refugees?  Immigration is an overwhelming problem, the government and media insist, particularly at the southern border and especially when the newcomers don't first ask a bureaucrat's permission to enter the land of the free. Most Americans agree. And all "solutions" inevitably call for more laws, more regulations and enforcement, more gargantuan bureaucracies — in short, more government. (Could that coincidence explain the harping on this topic?) But so far, few folks have investigated a question fundamental to fixing what's wrong: the cause. Why are crowds on the move flocking to the U.S.? "Because," smug nationalists say, "we're the best country on earth!" Without doubt, we once were. And our founding philosophy of liberty is not only earth's best but history's as well. Yet we've strayed further from those ideals than a shack in Mexico is from Trump Tower. "We're still better than whatever hellhole the illegals come from," smirks our nationalist. Especially when the U.S. has bombed, meddled with, imposed police-states on, and starved those hellholes. For more than a century, American governments and their corporate cronies have abused nations in Central America (and elsewhere) as though they were vassals rather than sovereign. And the refugees that result seek safety, food, and peace in the very country that destroyed those blessings for them, ironically enough.  For example, this past April saw "an attempt to overwhelm U. S. Customs and Border Protection, [with] over a thousand Central Americans ... marching through Mexico toward the U. S. border. ...the caravan is intended to help migrants safely reach the United States, bypassing not only authorities who would seek to deport them, but gangs and cartels who are known to assault vulnerable migrants." Predictably, the American right excoriated this "invasion." But they should have instead damned their own State Department. Why? Because about 80% of these folks hailed from Honduras. And the U.S. State Department has wasted not only billions of our taxes but decades on rendering that country uninhabitable: "...the foreign policy disaster [of] American support for the Porfirio Lobo administration in Honduras ... Ever since the June 28, 2009, coup that deposed Honduras's democratically elected president, José Manuel Zelaya, the country has been descending deeper into a human rights and security abyss. That abyss is in good part the State Department's making. … [Honduras] now has the world's highest murder rate … corruption [has] mushroom[ed]. The judicial system hardly functions. … At least 34 members of the opposition have disappeared or been killed, and more than 300 people have been killed by state security forces since the coup …" The catalog of crimes continues, through Obummer's praising a drug trafficker at the White House, increased financing (read: more of our taxes) for Honduras' police state, and other horrors. (I've drawn this portrait from one source, but I invite you to read a variety of reports about the Feds' malice towards Honduras.) Why the State Department's fixation on this little nation? Because it's "crucial to the United States' military strategy in Latin America." In other words, the Feds recognize no limits — not life, liberty, law, or morals — when advancing their agenda to dominate the planet. Let's suppose for a moment that Honduras and the U.S. were to change positions, that the evil our government has wreaked, Honduras had instead visited on us — all while Honduras itself remained relatively peaceful and prosperous. Would you try to escape such an American nightmare? Would you desperately flee to Honduras with your vulnerable children? What if the natives ridiculed your longing for peace and protection? What if they mounted armed guards on their borders — these voters and taxpayers who permitted their politicians to ravage your home? We find the same sorry tale when we turn to another Central American country disgorging refugees on us: "The CIA has a long history of involvement in Guatemala, having helped to orchestrate the army's overthrow of a democratically elected government in 1954. … As the Cold War raged in the 1960s and '70s, the United States gave the Guatemalan military $33 million in aid even though U.S. officials were aware of the army's dismal track record on human rights, the documents show." When the American public learned of that gift, "U.S. President Jimmy Carter cut off overt military aid. However, money and arms still got ... there —through the CIA. When [Guatemalan] President Lucas Garcia began his fearsome regime in 1978, ...when death squads roamed the land and murdered at will, the CIA was there to help. … Near the end of the Reagan administration, another technique for repression was used — the war on drugs. While the program had no significant impact on drug production and trafficking, it had serious consequences for indigenous Guatemalans. The spraying of lethal herbicides by anti-drug helicopters and planes caused widespread damage, poisoning large numbers of people, animals, fish, and plants. To escape government violence, some of the tens-of-thousands of indigenous internal refugees in Guatemala at that time, banded together in remote areas. In the name of its anti-drug policy, the government bombed these areas, captured much of the population, and tortured and killed many of them." Again, I Invite you to study the U.S.'s crimes in Guatemala. And if Guatemala's position in the world were switched with ours, if a secret Guatemalan bureaucracy had sowed the havoc here that the CIA did there, so that your friends "disappeared" and your children's future was sketchy at best, would you seek safety elsewhere? Tragically, we could continue our survey with just about any region that's vomiting its residents onto our shores. The history of the U.S.'s malevolence abroad eternally shames us. Which makes ending the influx simple: abolish the CIA, the State Department and all other bureaucracies responsible for these atrocities. Forbid the Feds from implementing any "foreign policy," and force them to abide by the Constitution's constraints. But no politician and mighty few of their constituents would ever agree to such a reduction in American power. They prefer to continue creating refugees —and then deny them succor. How long before a heavenly Judge redresses this wickedness? — Becky Akers

Deerfield Illinois 'Outrageous'

What SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb Calls 'Outrageous'  BY TIM SCHMIDT - USCCA FOUNDER

You may recall how just a few short weeks ago, the Chicago suburb of Deerfield actively tread on the rights of its citizens when, according to GunsAmerica, it imposed a ban on the "sale, possession and manufacture of 'assault weapons' and 'large-capacity magazines' to 'increase the public's sense of safety.'" CNN reported back in April that "if the 18,000 residents … [didn't] forfeit or secure weapons that [fell] under the ban by June 13, they [would] be charged from $200 to $1,000 a day as a penalty," something Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) founder Alan Gottlieb called "outrageous." As that deadline loomed closer, SAF, in conjunction with the Illinois State Rifle Association and Daniel Easterday, a Deerfield resident, "moved swiftly to challenge [the ban] because it flew in the face of state law," according to Gottlieb. The state preemption law to which Gottlieb referred was enacted in 2013 and declares that "only the state Legislature can pass laws that regulate firearms." [GunsAmerica] He noted that "the village tried to disguise its extremism as an amendment to an existing ordinance," as allowed during a short grace period, and added that the ban "certainly puts the lie to claims by anti-gunners that 'nobody is coming to take your guns.'" According to GunsAmerica, a judge ruled Tuesday in favor of Gottlieb & Co., "granting the injunction" and "thus preventing the village from rolling out" the ban. The Chicago Tribune reported that Lake County Circuit Court Judge Luis Verrones "found the Deerfield assault weapons ban to be a new ordinance and not an amendment to a prior ordinance" as the city claimed. He suggested that "the hardships imposed on gun owners outweigh any harm to Deerfield in delaying the effective date of the 2018 ordinance."  Despite the blow, the city said it would consider an appeal. I'm thankful for the Second Amendment Foundation and other great pro-gun organizations who continually fight for our rights. Keep in mind that somebodyhas to initiate these types of proceedings and that their efforts often result in victories both big and small for law-abiding gun owners. Remember, too, how important it is that each and every responsibly armed American stay active in this fight. Every little bit you can give — your time, your money, your voice — really can make a difference.