The True Story of Thanksgiving

The True Story of Thanksgiving

Celebrate God's Blessings on America

Celebrate God's Blessings on America

Senate Election Results Give Republicans Opportunity to Confirm More Judges Faster

From the Daily Signal  Thomas Jipping 

The 2018 election results are encouraging, if for no other reason than that more progress can be made in filling judicial vacancies.

First, a snapshot of where things stand right now.

President Donald Trump has made almost 40 percent more nominations to life-tenured positions than the average for his five predecessors of both parties at this point. The pace of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings for judicial nominees is also way ahead of the usual pace.

The Senate’s record for confirming those nominees, however, is not as robust. Previous posts (see here, here, and here) have detailed the strategies by Senate Democrats to make the confirmation process cumbersome rather than efficient.

The Senate has confirmed 84 judges, or 54 percent of his nominees, so far in the 115th Congress. That compares to an average of 73 percent of the nominees confirmed at this point for Presidents Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama.

Unfortunately, we are in the longest period of triple-digit judicial vacancies in more than 25 years. During his first two years in office, with a Senate of his own party, President Bill Clinton cut judicial vacancies nearly in half. Today, even with a Senate of his own party, vacancies are 13 percent higher than when Trump took office.

But the Senate has a great opportunity to help alleviate this grave situation.

The Judiciary Committee has already approved 32 judicial nominees, which today wait for a vote by the full Senate. Sixteen more have had a hearing and need only a committee vote to join that list.

Confirming those would bring the total confirmation rate to 85 percent of Trump’s nominees—still below Clinton’s 95 percent at this point, but on a par with Clinton in the percentage of the judiciary he had appointed during their respective first two years in office.

The 2018 election provides even more hope. Expanding the Republican majority in the Senate may also improve their majority on the Judiciary Committee, with more flexibility in achieving and maintaining the quorum needed to do business. And thanks to Democrats in 2013, ending debate on nominations now requires only a simple majority.

Expect partisan opposition to Trump’s judicial nominations to continue.

More than half of his nominees have faced various levels of Democratic opposition on the Senate floor, compared to an average of just 8 percent of the previous five presidents’ nominees facing any opposition. Of the 1,458 total votes cast on the Senate floor against Trump judicial nominees, only two came from Republicans.

Even if Democrats continue their blindly partisan approach, a larger Republican majority will ensure that Trump’s qualified judges will continue to be approved.

The 2018 election result may affect the confirmation process in another way. Different parties controlling the Senate and House decreases the likelihood of significant or comprehensive legislation on any subject. While that is not a positive prospect, at least on issues that genuinely need sound legislation, it means there will be less competition for the Senate’s attention.

The Democrats’ strategy of making each step of the confirmation process as time-consuming as possible is more effective when floor time is scarce. More floor time available for confirmations can neutralize that strategy.

Obama spent eight years appointing judges who have departed radically from the defined, modest role that America’s Founders designed for the judiciary. Trump is steadily putting the judiciary back on course by consistently appointing judges who know their proper place in our system of government and who will be impartial, rather than political, in how they decide cases.

The Senate can still make progress toward that goal in the remaining days of the 115th Congress, and the 2018 election expands the opportunity for improving the judiciary in the next two years.

Voter Fraud Undermines the Votes of Black Americans

Derrick Hollie / @DJHollie 

We often hear people complain that their votes don’t count, and recent election results have many questioning our voting process.

Indeed, without effective safeguards, the civil rights movement’s goal of making everybody’s vote count may never be achieved.

White authorities in the Jim Crow South used tactics ranging from poll taxes to ballot destruction to lynching to keep blacks from participating in the political process. Efforts to limit and hijack votes still exist, but they are much more subtle.

When a vote is cast in someone else’s name—dead or alive—the votes of others are diminished. When an illegal immigrant or a restricted felon votes, the votes of others are similarly compromised.

Voter fraud may lack the intimidation and violence employed in the past, but it still minimizes the ability of all people to participate in the process and determine how they are to be governed.

Those in poor and minority communities are particularly at risk because they are frequent victims of voter fraud. Anthony DeFiglio, a Democratic committeeman in Troy, New York, said, “The people who are targeted live in low-income housing and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask questions. What appears as a huge conspiracy to nonpolitical persons is really a normal political tactic.”

DeFiglio should know. He pled guilty to voter fraud himself.

Project Veritas has shown just how easy it is to obtain a ballot without proof of identity. The Department of Justice recently indicted 19 legal and illegal foreign nationals for voting in the 2016 election, and this year, the California Department of Motor Vehicles accidentally registered approximately 1,500 people to vote—including noncitizens.

In 2013, a poll worker pled guilty to voting in place of her comatose sister in three previous elections. And Al Franken’s 312-vote Senate victory in 2008 is tainted by the fact that 1,099 convicted felons voted illegally in that election.

And that’s just scratching the surface. The Heritage Foundation’s Voter Fraud Database chronicles many types of election fraud across the United States along with findings and convictions.

As part of its “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America,” the Project 21 black leadership network offers a robust set of recommendations for protecting black self-determination.

Project 21 calls for voter identification requirements and proof of citizenship. It recommends regular cleaning of voter lists to remove people who have moved or died, and purging lists of voters who haven’t voted in six years (ignoring three federal election cycles). It also suggests limiting mailed ballots to those who request them, as well as prosecuting those who target black communities in voter fraud schemes.

“Today’s voter suppression doesn’t come from men wearing hoods,” says Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper. “It comes through voter dilution due to phony voters on the rolls—convicts, illegals, and ghosts. The effect is the same—bona fide black citizens have their votes cancelled or drowned out.”

With a critical election looming, there’s plenty of talk about the importance of voting. But the focus is always about getting to the polls—not being prepared with documentation. This seems almost intentional. It’s also demeaning.

The lead plaintiff in a 2012 case that the ACLU and NAACP brought against Pennsylvania’s voter ID law was 93-year-old black woman named Viviette Applewhite. Her ID had been stolen, and she was unable to obtain a copy of her birth certificate. Her attorneys argued that under these circumstances, the voter ID law kept her from voting.

The court upheld the voter ID law, but the next day, Applewhite easily got a free identification issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Taking her circumstances into consideration, state employees who reportedly didn’t know who she was accepted an old Medicare card and Department of Public Welfare document as enough proof of her identity.

Applewhite reportedly visited nine countries and 48 states in her 93 years. In 2012, she could have never visited a 10th country without showing proper identification, nor could she likely enter a courthouse to have her case heard. The fact that the ACLU and NAACP fought to keep her at an overall disadvantage is not a civil rights achievement.

Having won the right to vote with the 15th Amendment, and having it secured by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other legislation, blacks need to have their votes count. Protections such as ID requirements and clean voter rolls are key to this assurance.

Robert Bowers and scapegoating social media

By Ben Crystal

Robert Bowers and scapegoating social media 

In keeping with American custom, the aftermath of the terrorist attack which stole the lives of 11 Americans at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh was filled with the usual politicized finger-pointing at the expense of legitimate concern for those affected. Why waste time with icky old mourning when we can blame President Donald Trump's bombast, the Democrat Party's association with vicious anti-Semites, and/or the NRA? It's just a complicated way of avoiding pinning the tail on the right donkey, a Nazi-wannabe wingnut named Robert Bowers? The debate over who incited him continues endlessly across the politisphere. But nearly all the accusers have noted a common suspect: social media. And nearly all of them are wrong to do it. In fact, humanity's increasing interconnectedness is actually forcing us to be better, not worse.

Social media may be a "wretched a hive of scum and villainy," but wretched hives of scum and villainy have existed since well before we could email other neat-o gifs we made of Obi Wan Kenobi explaining Mos Eisley to Luke Skywalker. Social media, which is merely the latest method by which humans communicate with one another, is no more to blame for the human condition than the invention of the telegraph. It's merely another web, overlaying another era.

To be sure, Bowers made his intentions known before he began his brief reign of terror, flooding internet outlets with voluminous diatribes against Jews, Trump, and anyone and everyone else who made his tinfoil hat feel too tight. Multiple legacy media outlets have since pointed to Gab, the platform on which he really let his freak flag fly, as somehow responsible for Bowers' rampage. The left-wing mouthpiece New York Times labeled Gab, formed partly in retort to Twitter's simultaneous crackdown on conservatives and promoting of extremist liberals, an "extremist-friendly site." Former Democrat Party fuhrer and failed presidential candidate Howard Dean even demanded Gab be prosecuted as Bowers' accomplices. Surely, the snakes filling Robert's head wouldn't have squirmed so much if the internet wasn't filled with so much snake squirming fuel. I have never visited Gab. I have been told there are, in fact, a sizeable number of trolls under that particular bridge. So, what if there are? Louis Farrakhan has nearly half a million followers on Twitter, and feelings about the "Chosen People" which neatly mirror those of Bowers. Let me know when they demand someone slap the metaphorical cuffs on Twitter. I won't hold my breath.

And history doesn't bear out blaming social media for human failings. How many people were murdered in the name of politics, religion or land prior to the first Instagram post? While I'm sure ISIS enjoys the convenience of whichever encrypted messaging app they use to direct whichever jihadi to blow up whichever nursery school is next on their list, Al Qaeda had a pretty big run in late 90s and early 2000s using dialup modems, cell phones the size of bricks, and VHS tapes of Osama bin Laden yukking it up with that Zawahiri creep. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the other superstars of fascism and communism's heyday piled up body counts in the tens of millions in eras in which communication technology was barely one step past Morse code. Scrolling backwards through history, as "social media" is reduced to "outdoor yelling," humanity gets progressively more Hobbesian, not less. In light of the Pittsburgh atrocity, ask any Jew about the "good old days" before Facebook.

The argument that social media is to blame for acts of terrorism is just another way for the human family to explain away the behavior of the cousins we don't invite to Thanksgiving; another way for us to avoid taking responsibility for our own poor performance as a species. The proper response to monsters is to shine the light on them, not let them haunt the dark. If anything, people would be better served by MORE involvement in whatever media is available, not less. There's a reason the first thing tyrants do is get control of the people's access to information, and therefore, each other.

HHS Moves To Reestablish A Scientific Definition Of Sex And Gender

Finally. HHS Moves To Reestablish A Scientific Definition Of Sex And Gender

JAZZ SHAWPosted at 5:01 pm on October 21, 2018  Hot Air

I’ve been calling for a case where this question is taken before the courts for years now and we might finally have the mechanism to make it happen. With the federal government under the Obama administration having caved to the demands of social justice warriors on the issue of transgenderism and rights, the door was opened to massive confusion in schools and most other areas of daily life. Some clarification and recognition of fundamental science and medical facts has been sorely needed and now we may be getting it. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may be close to issuing a revised, legal definition of sex under Title IX. And this, of course, immediately had the staff at the New York Times setting their collective hair on fire.

The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.

A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of sex in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing sex largely as an individual’s choice — and prompting fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.

Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.

Federal Judge ‘Shocked’ Clinton Aide Granted Immunity by Justice Department

Court Criticizes State Department for Providing False Statements on Clinton Emails

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that in his opening remarks at a Friday, October 12 hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth strongly criticized the U.S. Department of State, stating, “The information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the [Clinton email] search and… what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email system.”

Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, Judge Lamberth said that he was “dumbfounded” by the agency’s Inspector General report revealing that Cheryl Mills had been given immunity and was allowed to accompany former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her FBI interview:

I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case. So I did not know that until I read the IG report and learned that and that she had accompanied the Secretary to her interview.

(In an April 28, 2008, ruling relating to Mills’ conduct as a White House official in responding to concerns about lost White House email records, Judge Lamberth called Mills’ participation in the matter “loathsome.” He further stated Mills was responsible for “the most critical error made in this entire fiasco … Mills’ actions were totally inadequate to address the problem.”)

Lamberth also complained that the Justice Department attorney representing the State Department was using “doublespeak,” and playing “word games.”

The hearing had been ordered by Judge Lamberth regarding a request from Judicial Watch for testimony under oath from Clinton, Mills and several other State Department officials regarding the State Department’s processing of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request and Clinton’s emails. The State Department still opposes all of Judicial Watch’s requests for additional discovery into the Clinton email scandal.

Judge Lamberth said he was relieved that he did not allow the case to be shut down prematurely, as the State Department had requested:

The case started with a motion for summary judgment [seeking to close the case] here and which I denied and allowed limited discovery because it was clear to me that at the time that I ruled initially, that false statements were made to me by career State Department officials and it became more clear through discovery that the information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the search and this – what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email system.

I don’t know the details of what kind of IG inquiry there was into why these career officials at the State Department would have filed false affidavits with me. I don’t know the details of why the Justice Department lawyers did not know false affidavits were being filed with me, but I was very relieved that I did not accept them and that I allowed limited discovery into what had happened.

Judge Lamberth also said the State Department was using “doublespeak” and word games:

THE COURT: The State Department told me that it had produced all records when it moved for summary judgment and you filed that motion.  That was not true when that motion was filed.
MR. PRINCE: At that time, we had produced all –
THE COURT: It was not true.
MR. PRINCE: Yes, it was – well, Your Honor, it might be that our search could be found to be inadequate, but that declaration was absolutely true.
THE COURT: It was not true.  It was a lie.
MR. PRINCE: It was not a lie, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What – that’s doublespeak.

***

PRINCE: There’s strong precedent saying that items not in the State’s possession do not need to be searched….
THE COURT:  And that’s because the Secretary was doing this on a private server?  So it wasn’t in the State’s possession?… So you’re playing the same word game she played?

In March 2016, Judge Lamberth granted “limited discovery” to Judicial Watch:

Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.

***

[Judicial Watch] is certainly entitled to dispute the State Department’s position that it has no obligation to produce these documents because it did not “possess” or “control” them at the time the FOIA request was made. The State Department’s willingness to now search documents voluntarily turned over to the Department by Secretary Clinton and other officials hardly transforms such a search into an “adequate” or “reasonable one. [Judicial Watch] is not relying on “speculation” or “surmise” as the State Department claims. [Judicial Watch] is relying on constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials.

The development comes in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:

• Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
• Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

In May 2016, Judicial Watch filed an initial Proposed Order for Discovery seeking additional information. The State Department opposed Judicial Watch’s proposal, and in December 2016 Judge Lamberth requested both parties to file new proposed orders in light of information discovered in various venues since the previous May.

The full transcript of the hearing is available here.

“President Trump should ask why his State Department is still refusing to answer basic questions about the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton’s and the State Department’s email cover up abused the FOIA, the courts, and the American people’s right to know.”

Watch additional comments from Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here.

###

Tom Fitton’s statement on the hearing:

Picture of Dr. Ford and Soros requires no comment

Dr. Ford with George Soros

Eight big problems for Christine Blasey Ford’s story

By Paul Sperry

September 25, 2018 | 6:57pm | Updated

Modal Trigger

Getty Images

Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Brett Kavanaugh are serious. She is accusing him of violent attempted rape. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me. He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing,” she told The Washington Post, recounting the alleged incident at a high school party “one summer in the early 1980s.”

But her story is also growing less believable by the day. Here are eight reasons why it’s hardly “anti-woman” for senators to question her account at Thursday’s hearing:

1) For starters, Ford still can’t recall basic details of what she says was the most traumatic event in her life. Not where the “assault” took place — she’s not sure whose house it was, or even what street it was on. Nor when — she’s not even sure of the year, let alone the day and month.

Ford’s not certain how old she was or what grade she was in when she says an older student violently molested her. (But she doesn’t plead inebriation: She described having just “one beer” at the party.)

2) Ford concedes she told no one what happened to her at the time, not even her best friend or mother. That means she can rely on no contemporaneous witness to corroborate her story.

3) Worse, the four other people she identified as attending the party, including Kavanaugh, all deny knowledge of the gathering in question, including Leland Ingham Keyser, who she calls a “lifelong friend.”

Keyser’s lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee: “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford.”

The other two potential witnesses — Mark Judge and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth — also deny any recollection of attending such a party. The committee took their sworn statements “under penalty of perjury.” “These witnesses directly contradict Professor Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley advised Ford’s attorneys last week.

This is, to say the least, highly problematic for her case. No witness corroborates any part of her story.In her original letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford claimed that Kavanaugh talked to Keyser and Smyth right after he assaulted her. Yet neither shares her memory.

4) Her own immediate family doesn’t appear to be backing her up, either. Her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband’s side of the family.

The letter attests to her honesty and integrity. “Why didn’t her parents and brothers sign the letter?” a congressional source familiar with the investigation wondered.

5) This summer, Ford tried to reach out to old friends from high school and college to jog her memory. They couldn’t help her. “I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail,” Ford complained to one friend in July, according to an account in The San Jose Mercury News.

6) Yet she still pushed forward with her bombshell charge, contacting The Washington Post tip line and Democratic lawmakers, while hiring a Democratic activist lawyer. Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.

7) Ford contends that notes her therapist took in 2012 corroborate her account. But they don’t mention Kavanaugh.

They also point up inconsistencies in her story. For instance, her shrink noted that Ford told her there were “four boys” in the bedroom, not two as she now says. The notes also indicate Ford said she was in her “late teens” when she was assaulted. But Ford now says she may have been only 15.

8) In another inconsistency, Ford told The Washington Post she was upset when Trump won in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick. But Kavanaugh wasn’t added to Trump’s list of possibles until November 2017, a full year later.

On top of all that, Kavanaugh “unequivocally denied Dr. Ford’s allegations . . . under penalty of perjury” during a Sept. 17 interview with committee lawyers, Grassley said, adding he was “forthright and emphatic in his testimony” and “fully answered all questions.”

The sworn interview will no doubt be used to test the consistency and veracity of his public statements Thursday.

Yet Democrats have already tried and convicted Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Without hard evidence, without substantiation, some even go beyond Ford’s claims to call him an out-and-out “rapist,” “sexual predator,” even a “child predator.”

As a result, Kavanaugh and his family, “including his two young daughters, have faced serious death threats and vicious assaults,” Grassley said. “And they’re getting worse each day.”

Ford, who also has received threats, is by all accounts a respected scientific researcher in the field of psychology with an impressive pedigree. While that makes her credible, the same can’t be said for her story. Unless she can fill in the many holes, Kavanaugh still deserves the presumption of innocence.

Paul Sperry is a bestselling author. 

Labor Day: Celebrating a bloody, violent and collectivist holiday

Labor Day: Celebrating a bloody, violent and collectivist holiday 

For most Americans, Labor Day is simply viewed as the last Summer hurrah marking the transition into fall. It's a day to relax, maybe travel to the beach or lake one last time and enjoy one last, good outdoor barbeque with friends. They give little thought to what it means.

"Labor Day" is a misnomer. It is a leisure day ostensibly designed to celebrate the labor movement. Labor Day has a violent, bloody and remarkably socialist history.

It was signed into law by President Grover Cleveland on June 28, 1894 during the Pullman strike, two days after some 150,000 railway workers in 27 states joined the 4,000 Pullman workers already staging a work stoppage.

But like most union strikes, workers weren't content to just walk off their jobs, they used violence and intimidation to force their will on their employers. They blocked train tracks and harassed and assaulted replacement workers.

"When they began running the trains, crowds of railroad workers would form to try to stop them from running," said Indiana State University professor and labor historian Richard Schneirov, who edited The Pullman Strike and the Crisis of the 1890s. "There was a lot of sympathy from people. They'd come out and try to help the railroad workers stop the trains. They might even be initiators — standing in front of the tracks and chucking pieces of coal and rocks and pieces of wood. Then there would be lots of kids, lots of teenagers, out of work or just hanging around and looking to join in for the fun."

Over the objections of Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld, Cleveland sent in federal troops to get the trains running. The General Manager's Association — a group representing 26 Chicago railroad companies — deputized federal marshals to help put down the strike. But the violence escalated into clashes that left 30 people dead caused $80 million in damages.

This sort of action is common throughout the history of labor unions. A union warning from the 1830s suggests how unions discouraged interlopers:

"We would caution all strangers and others who profess the art of horseshoeing, that if they go work for any employer under the above prices, they must abide by the consequences."

Americans by and large believe the trope that was fed to them in government schools that there was a time when unions were necessary because greedy capitalists exploited workers. Even those who oppose unions today often repeat this falsehood, failing to recognize or acknowledge that those "exploited workers" were being provided jobs that were often far better than some other type of work they could be doing, and they were free to leave the job at any time and find another.

That's not to say that there weren't some horrendous working conditions. But in order to keep employees, employers were forced by the free market to pay higher wages to those workers willing to take the risks.

Unions are decidedly collectivist constructs. And like all collectivist systems they stifle innovation, ambition, enterprise and invention, reducing all employees to the lowest common denominator. Unions are cartels — and some legal documents have called them criminal conspiracies engaged in restraint of trade — that artificially drive up wages, which drives up prices and reduces the standard of living for everyone. Artificially high wage rates lead to layoffs and unemployment, particularly among the less skilled and those with less experience and the young.

Like all collectivist systems, unions engage in theft, forcing workers — even non-union workers in many cases — to give up a portion of their earnings to support union activities and the union bosses — who make far more than the laborers — whether they support those activities or not. Since wages and working conditions are set by unions, low-efficiency labor is encouraged because the union worker knows his job is protected. Unions reduce the employer's ability to discipline or fire his workers as he sees fit.

Unions are anti-liberty in that they prevent people from working by controlling the labor market. Using government to create protectionist laws like apprenticeship programs and licensing requirements, the supply of labor is reduced. Unions — and labor laws pushed onto us by union interference in the political process — prevent young people from working and limit the number of hours people can work, thereby interfering in individual contracts.

Unions also prohibit people from bettering themselves. In companies without unions, the more value the employee brings to the company the better he can be compensated. Unions not only disincentivize creating more value for the company, they prevent it by capping worker salary at a certain rate for each job category. This, too, interferes with individual contracts.

As noted above, unions use coercive tactics to achieve their ends. Workers are certainly free to leave their jobs if working conditions or wages are unsatisfactory, even free to leave en masse if they choose, but employers should likewise be free to hire replacement workers, and employees who wish to stay on and replacement workers should not be threatened, assaulted, murdered or blacklisted by the union and its members for having done so. Labor laws passed by politicians supported by union money grant almost free license for unions to use coercive behaviors but largely prevent companies from firing and replacing striking workers.

As TJ Roberts of Liberty Hangout writes, "Unions, on an economic political and ethical level, are illegitimate entities that hurt the poor, promote the State, and engage in violence against honest people and should be rejected entirely by libertarians and society alike."

So as you celebrate Labor Day, stop and consider for a moment exactly what it is you're celebrating. 

Student Loan Forgiveness Program Guide

Student Loan Forgiveness Program Guide

Posted by SLR Editor | Oct 17, 2017 | Resources & Guides | 0

For many, student loans represent a significant investment in an individual’s future. Borrowing to complete an undergraduate, graduate, or professional degree program is often the only means to pay for the cost of higher education, as the price tag continues to increase at public and private institutions alike.

Currently, more than 44 million Americans have outstanding student loan debt, totaling over $1.4 trillion among them, and these figures make it hard to fathom how student loan balances will ever be paid off.

Fortunately, some student loan borrowers have access to valuable forgiveness programs that offset the burden of paying for student debt over the course of several years. In this guide, borrowers can learn about what student loan forgiveness is, the available student loan forgiveness programs, caveats to forgiveness, and how private student loans are impacted.

What Is Student Loan Forgiveness?

Student loan forgiveness is the process of having outstanding loan balances canceled after a period of on-time, consistent monthly payments. Whether in full or in part, student loan forgiveness means that a borrower has the slate wiped clean and there is no longer an obligation to repay a remaining balance.

The cancellation of student loan debts takes place through the borrower’s student loan servicer, but the federal government via the Department of Education takes on the financial responsibility of student loan forgiveness. Students may be eligible for loan forgiveness based on their employment, their career field, or their selected repayment program.

Student Loan Forgiveness Programs

There are several student loan forgiveness programs available to qualified borrowers through the Department of Education, including Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Teacher Loan Forgiveness, Income-Driven Repayment Forgiveness, and Perkins Loan Cancellation.

Public Service Loan Forgiveness

Under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, also referred to as PSLF, individuals who borrowed federal student loans to help pay for their education who work in a public service position may have outstanding balances forgiven after a period of ten years of repayment. The program started in 2007 and is made available to qualifying workers, like teachers, military personnel, nurses, and firefighters, who hold a job in a non-profit organization or the government.

To qualify, borrowers must have worked in a qualifying field for at least ten years and made payments on their federal student loans for at least the same amount of time. Employment with a qualified organization must be full-time, which means at least 30 hours per week. At this time, only federal direct loans are eligible for PSLF, but a consolidation of other types of loans may indirectly provide loan forgiveness to some qualified borrowers. After the 120th payment is made, borrowers may submit an application to their federal student loan servicer.

Teacher Loan Forgiveness

Individuals who borrowed to help pay for their college degree may qualify for teacher loan forgiveness through the Department of Education. Through the teacher loan forgiveness program, borrowers who work as teachers on a full-time basis may qualify to have up to $17,500 in direct or Stafford student loans forgiven. Eligible teachers must work in a low-income public elementary or secondary school, and they must have worked in that environment consecutively for the last five years.

While direct and Stafford loans are eligible for the teacher loan forgiveness program, borrowers must have taken out their first loans on or after October 1, 1998. Borrowers who believe they are eligible for teacher loan forgiveness may submit an application directly to their student loan servicer after the five years of consecutive, qualifying employment is complete.

Forgiveness Via Income-Drive Repayment

The federal government also offers student loan forgiveness to borrowers who elect to participate in an income-driven repayment program. Through these repayment options, which include income-based, income-contingent, Pay As You Earn and Revised Pay As You Earn, a borrower’s monthly student loan payment is capped as a percentage of monthly discretionary income, recalculated each year.

At the end of the repayment term, either 20 or 25 years, the remaining balance is automatically forgiven so long as borrowers have made consistent, on-time payments. To apply, borrowers must contact their federal student loan servicer directly to ensure they are on the most appropriate repayment program and are ultimately eligible for income-driven repayment forgiveness.

Perkins Loan Cancellation

Certain borrowers who show an exceptional financial need at the time of applying for federal financial aid may qualify for Federal Perkins Loans. These loans are low-interest federal student loans made available to both graduate and undergraduate students, up to certain limits. Perkins loans are only offered through participating schools, and the college or university offering the loan is the student’s lender, not the federal government.

MUST READ:

Top Colleges for University-Provided Part-Time Employment

Borrowers with Perkins Loans who work in certain types of public service or certain occupations may qualify to have a percentage of the loan canceled after each year of employment. Perkins Loan cancellation is currently offered to volunteers in the Peace Corps or ACTION program, teachers, members of the U.S. armed forces, nurses or medical technicians, law enforcement, Head Start workers, child or family services workers, and professional providers of early intervention services. To apply for Perkins Loan cancellation, borrowers must contact the school from which the original loan was acquired.

Special Considerations and Drawbacks

While student loan forgiveness can ease the burden of large student loan balances, there are caveats. First, student loan forgiveness tied to an income-driven repayment plan has certain tax implications for borrowers. At the time outstanding loan balances are forgiven, a borrower is taxed on that amount as income.

As an example, for an individual with a 25% income tax rate who has $30,000 in student loan debt forgiven may owe $7,500 in income tax the year the balance is canceled. Fortunately, borrowers who qualify for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Teacher Loan forgiveness, or Perkins Loan cancellation are not taxed on any balance forgiven.

Additionally, borrowers who plan to utilize a federal student loan forgiveness program are susceptible to legislative changes that could severely impact their chances of being released from obligations. In recent months, student loan forgiveness for all current programs has been debated in Congress, leaving some borrowers weary of banking on forgiveness as part of their long-term financial plan.

There is no prediction that can be made as to what will take place with any of the student loan forgiveness programs, but borrowers should be aware that any or all of these benefits may disappear in the future, leaving the responsibility to repay student loans fully on their shoulders.

Finally, student loan borrowers who plan to use student loan forgiveness through PSLF or teacher loan forgiveness often work in career fields that offer lower earning potential over a lifetime. Taking a smaller annual income is beneficial in qualifying for loan forgiveness, but it may lead to challenges in setting aside savings for long-term financial goals.

Each loan forgiveness program requires years of on-time payments before loan balances are forgiven, so it is important for borrowers to weigh the pros and cons of career decisions in advance.

Forgiveness for Private Student Loans?

All student loan forgiveness programs mentioned in this guide are relevant for student loan borrowers who have federal student loans, or those originally provided through the Department of Education.

Private student loans offered by financial institutions not tied to the federal government do not currently qualify for student loan forgiveness under any federal program. There are, however, rare instances where student loans provided by private lenders may be canceled.

Borrowers may be able to have private student loans discharged through bankruptcy proceedings, but only when they are able to prove that the monthly payment will impose an undue hardship for an extended period of time. Each bankruptcy court varies by state, and this means that the tests used to evaluate undue hardship also varied greatly.

Generally speaking, if a borrower is unable to maintain a minimal standard of living for himself or his dependents based on income and expenses, including private student loan payments, a discharge through bankruptcy may be possible.

For student loan borrowers who currently have federal student loan debt, the idea to refinance into private student loans may be appealing. This is because most private student loan lenders offer extended repayment plans and variable interest rates that seem lower at the onset of a loan refinance, saving borrowers money on their monthly payment as well as on the total cost of borrowing over time.

However, because private student loan lenders do not offer any respite to borrowers by way of loan forgiveness over time, individuals should carefully consider their options with their federal student loans before opting to refinance with a private lender.

Overall, federal student loan forgiveness can be a smart strategy for borrowers who plan to work in a certain career field or select an income-driven repayment plan after graduation. When consecutive, on-time payments are made to eligible federal student loans, forgiveness can be a light at the end of a long tunnel.

However, borrowers need to be aware of the caveats of federal student loan forgiveness, including tax implications, uncertainty about the viability of forgiveness programs, and the need to take lower-income positions before relying heavily on a forgiveness program to repay student loan debt.

Trump Keeps Winning and Winning and Winning

Originally published at Fox News  By Newt Gingrich

In the middle of the liberal media’s desperate efforts to convince us that President Trump is in trouble, there are an amazing number of victories that suggest he is winning. In fact, there are indications that he is winning a lot.

Let’s start with Tuesday’s primaries. In Florida, a fine, well-entrenched state agriculture commissioner (and former congressman) Adam Putnam decisively lost the Republican gubernatorial primary to Congressman Ron DeSantis. The big boost for DeSantis came from President Trump’s endorsement and a Trump robocall to Florida Republicans.

The contest for governor of our third most populous state shaped up even better for Republicans as a hard-left Bernie Sanders-backed progressive won the Democratic primary with 34 percent of the vote. The contrast between a pro-Trump DeSantis and a hard-left Sanders socialist will probably keep Florida in Republican hands in November.

Florida gave Trump and Republicans a second boost as Governor Rick Scott won an important primary victory for a U.S. Senate seat. Scott has proven in his two campaigns for governor that he is an aggressive, effective campaigner. It is very likely the blue wave in Florida will disappear with the DeSantis and Scott victories.

In Arizona, President Trump won another primary victory when Martha McSally, a congresswoman and Air Force veteran (in fact, the first American woman to fly a fighter jet in combat) won the Republican U.S. Senate nomination. President Trump praised McSally earlier this month at the signing ceremony for the National Defense Authorization Act. What looked at one time to be a close contest became a blowout, as McSally won 52 percent of the vote in a three-way race and was 24 points ahead of her closest competitor. Republican chances of keeping the Arizona seat are dramatically better with McSally as the nominee.

Beyond the primaries, President Trump has been winning amazing victories in nominating – and with Mitch McConnell’s leadership getting the Senate to confirm – federal judges. Where Hillary Clinton would have nominated radical judges, President Trump has been consistently nominating constitutional conservatives to the courts. This will have a profound impact on America’s future.

So far, President Trump and McConnell have confirmed60 federal judges – this includes Justice Gorsuch, 33 district court judges, and 26 judges for the court of appeals. Additionally, President Trump has nominatedmore than 80 other judges across the federal system (including U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh). McConnell has been doggedly working to get these nominees confirmed, and I suspect he will drive them through the Senate before the end of the year.

So, on judges, President Trump is winning an amazing victory for conservatism. No wonder the Left is in a frenzy.

Finally, the breakthrough in trade negotiations with Mexico is, to use one of President Trump’s favorite words, huge.

Most of the so-called experts had said the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) couldn’t be renegotiated. They insisted Trump had offended Mexicans so much with his harsh language that the Mexican government wouldn’t come to the table. They asserted building the wall would alienate the Mexican leadership. They were just plain wrong.

President Trump’s progress on NAFTA sends five big signals:

1. Making good on a big, disruptive pledge that set his 2016 campaign apart from every other candidate, President Trump kept his word and is forcing a difficult negotiation toward success.
2. President Trump proved, once again, that tough language and tough negotiating can actually lead to breakthroughs. Unlike most politicians, Trump is willing to endure heat to achieve success.
3. As a result of his seriousness on trade, other countries are now approaching Trump about trade negotiations (note German Chancellor Merkel’s call this week for trade talks).
4. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tried to be clever when he ambushed and attempted to embarrass President Trump during a press conference at the G7 Summit in Canada. Trudeau is now discovering that Trump has a good memory. Canada now has virtually no leverage in trying to play catch up with the U.S.-Mexico negotiations.
5. The Trump Administration’s continued attention to economic matters – despite the liberal media’s daily efforts to get him and his team off balance through dishonest reporting and smear stories – is paying off. The average American sees the economy getting better and better. And the average American increasingly thinks the success is due to President Trump.

So, Trump’s judicial and economic victories build his prestige, and that prestige is giving him the muscle to reshape the Republican Party.

It is an amazing story. No one in the liberal mainstream media apparently understands, but historians will look back on this period in amazement.

They will clearly see a political-cultural battle between an aggressive, effective, successful president and a disoriented, defeated, and demoralized news media.

Clearly President Trump is winning.