After a period of silence, Dr. Bandy Lee and her committee of mental-health “experts” have again burst onto the scene, angling to participate in the impeachment of President Trump. They are defying the Goldwater Rule, which holds that it is unethical for physicians to diagnose patients they have not personally examined. They claim that President Trump is a such a serious threat to the nation that they are allowed to violate rules.
“We don’t believe there is the need for any further evaluation, and we are making ourselves available for the impeachment hearing because we believe that mental health issues will become critical as pressures from the impeachment hearings mount,” Dr. Lee told the Washington Examiner. “In other words, the more successful the impeachment proceedings become, the more dangerous the psychological factors of the president will become.”
Obviously, the thing to do is to increase the psychological pressure on a person you declare to be unstable.
Dr. Lee’s “medical assessment” of the President’s “mental capacity to fulfill the duties of his office” includes the examination of tweets, public appearances, and the 448-page Mueller report. “There is very little that a personal examination will add,” Lee said.
She denies that she is actually making a diagnosis. Indeed, “unfitness for office” is an opinion, a conclusion that is not in the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of currently defined psychiatric diagnoses.
Regardless of one’s opinion about President Trump, this self-appointed “Independent Expert Panel for Presidential Fitness” should concern all Americans. Where does a group of academic experts get the ability or the authority to determine whether the President is “capable of keeping the country safe”?
The U.S. Constitution provides several methods of “regime change,” which is what Congressional Democrats, the mainstream news media, and this Panel seem
determined to achieve. The first is elections. In 2016, Americans voted for a change from the policies of Obama and Clinton and the imbedded bureaucracy. Ever since then, the losers have been seeking to nullify this result. Attacks on the President by the press have been unrelenting. Unlike Abraham Lincoln or Woodrow Wilson, this President has not imprisoned any journalists or shut down any newspapers. But he does make sarcastic remarks—and his opponents would like to deny him the forum of social media.
Second is the 25th Amendment, which provides for the removal of a President for incapacity. This might have removed Woodrow Wilson after a devastating stroke had it been in existence at the time. It requires action by the Vice President and a majority of executive officers or a body appointed by Congress—not a few activist academics. This has so far been a non-starter.
Finally, there is impeachment, for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In American jurisprudence, proceedings are supposed to be triggered by a crime—not by the Soviet KGB method of “show me the man, and I will name his crime.” Or worse, “KGB Plus”—show me the man, and I will invent his crime.
In a world where there are so many ever-changing rules that everyone might be inadvertently committing “three felonies a day,” anyone could be prosecuted. But one is at least supposed to have certain rights: confronting the accuser, assistance of counsel, access to all the evidence, the right to call and cross-examine witnesses. And knowing exactly what the charges are.
Why should psychiatrists be intruding themselves into this legal process? Are there Thought Crimes that they have a special ability to discern?
Ordinary Americans should be very concerned. If this can happen to the President, it can happen to them. And it does.
One alarming example is the “fitness for duty” evaluations to which physicians may be subjected by people who for some reason want to destroy them. There are virtually no due-process rights. The examiner has the status of a physician, but no obligation to act in the “patient’s” (target’s) best interest. Some psychiatrists may presume to have god-like power to judge a person’s emotions, intentions, and capacity—asserted in the name of safety or “security.” “Red flag” laws are another example.
President Trump may be right in saying: “They’re not coming for me. They are coming for you. I’m just in the way.”
Bandy Lee and associates are showing us a method to remove undesirables if legal process fails.
Jane M. Orient, M.D. obtained her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona in Tucson, and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1974. Her views are her own. This is an edited version of her column that originally appeared in pennypress.com. Reprinted with permission.
f the Democrat jihad against President Donald Trump has shown us anything about the so-called Deep State it is that there is a class of professional bureaucrats—so called “experts”—who think they're accountable to…nobody.
Certainly not the President.
And they think of us as “the American People” in the pejorative. Not that they work for us. No, they work for some mythical country in which “the people” don’t get a vote because we’re far too stupid to have any actual say in things like foreign affairs, or military issues or trade or the law.
They populate the Departments of State, Justice, Defense and, even the White House itself.
And many of these people don’t have the common sense that God gave a goose.
That was all on display during the Schiff Show, the last two weeks. The question you need to answer, now that the arrogance of these people has been fully on display is where do we go from here?
There is still some question—not much—as to whether or not Nancy Pelosi is willing to endure the inevitable results of an impeachment. Assuming she is—or just cannot avoid it—Donald Trump will most likely be re-elected for the same reason he won in the first place. That is, to drain the swamp of the arrogance exhibited by the so-called deep state.
A swamp that the House Democrats put on full display through their patron saint Adam Schiff.
And, like the Kremlin, this group of governmental super studs has their own newspaper. Only, instead of Pravda, theirs is the Washington Post. With headlines like “Trump’s GOP support hardens despite damning impeachment testimony”.
Had I written a headline like that DURING WATERGATE, I would have been hustled off to a public relations firm if I wanted to continue my career in the media. The writers and editors at the Post have become nothing but pimps and pimpettes (call them “presstitutes” like they do in the Phillipines) for the group of deep staters and Democrats I have described above.
But, again, they all seem to have forgotten that this is a very large nation with a huge silent majority that has simply had enough.
You can take a map of the United States and find the WalMarts where you can “smell the Trump support” West of the Hudson River, South of the Cook County line and East of the Los Angeles County line. In the last election that produced 63,000,000 votes AFTER NBC leaked a private conversation with Billy Bush which would have certainly disqualified most candidates.
How bad a light does that cast the deep state?
The fact is that you, I and our neighbors have had enough. We are tired of being called stupid and not well educated. We are tired of a world where common sense is derided as “impeachable” by geniuses like Schiff and his little buddy Eric Swalwell.
And to put the cherry on top of the sundae, the President saw that the rules of engagement for the wars we are fighting in the Middle East were being used to ruin the lives of service members (but never those with stars on their shoulders) who actually killed the enemy. We wanted to have a war but make actually killing the enemy illegal.
So, he issued two complete pardons and a commutation.
Immediately upon those actions, some two star pissant admiral in the Navy told a Navy Seal who had his sentence overturned by the President that he would face a board to remove him from the Seals.
That board will convene shortly. Or not. What do you think will happen?
Can you say “military-industrial complex”? Well President Trump can say “civilian control” and did. Ask the now former Secretary of the Navy.
Want to try and remove him? As they used to say on a game show—which is what this really is—COME ON DOWN!
In the early 2000s, I was the drummer in the band Junkyard Prophet, voted second highest unsigned band in the country, behind P.O.D who became MTV's darling, and according to Reverb Nation, we were the best unsigned band. We worked with Geffen Records, Warner Brothers and being endorsed by major musical instrument companies globally. After touring the nation, as well as playing with the biggest names in the Christian scene (Bride, Guardian, Disciple, Novou, etc.) and secular bands (Drowning pool, Creed, Sick Puppies, Head East, Steppenwolf etc.), I am simply bringing my experience to you concerning the topic in which I will highlight first hand.
Before I get started, I would like to say to those who want to twist Scripture in an attempt to protect the gods that they have created in their minds such as their favorite musicians, actors, etc. (Exodus 20:4) by suggesting that I am not to judge, I would remind you that I am using the Judge's Word to make judgments. I am judging with righteous judgment, and that out of love (Leviticus 19:17; John 7:24).
Furthermore, I would like to add that if you are not zealous against errors, it is because you are not zealous for the truth, whereas I am.
Yesterday, I took the time to highlight on my radio show the likes of many “celebrities,” that have been elevated to modern-day Christian stardom such as Kayne West, who was trophied on the heretical Joel Osteen platform recently for his supposed conversion. And you thought the political scene was filled with theatre! The Lord warned us of both (Mark 8:15).
This novice (Unacquainted or unskilled in the Word), Kayne West, stated that he was the greatest artist that God ever created.
Didn’t know that it was about Kayne West anymore (Luke 9:23)? Kayne was praising himself (Proverbs 27:2).
Furthermore, does someone want to give this guy a reality check on what talent truly is? Then again, the bar has been lowered so far that we can understand why he is deceived into believing that he is what he wants to believe that he is.
“Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” -1 Timothy 3:6-7
You are to prove those who call themselves Christians.
“And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you…” -1 Thessalonians 5:12
Case in point: Established churches up until 1900s used to prove their members for 1-3 years before accepting them for their professions (Acts 11:26).
Now, Kayne wants to evangelize America’s youth with his music. That's a good initiative, but he needs to first make sure that he is first a partaker of the fruit that the Lord gives in understanding in all things (2 Timothy 2:7). Time will show whether he is genuine or not.
The reason that I bring this point up is to show you what others that have claimed conversion such Bono from U2, Brian “Head” Welch from Korn, Alice Cooper, Bob Dylan, etc. do. They go back to the vomit that they claimed that they were converted from (Proverbs 26:11).
How does that work?
For example, Brian “Head” Welch from Korn claims his conversion, but rejoins the band and lifestyle that he claimed to be converted from.
Let me tell you that works by feeding upon the hirelings of the day (John 10:12) and refusing to do your own due diligence in searching the Scriptures for yourselves (John 7:17; Philippians 2:12; 2 Timothy 2:15).
According to Brian’s world (Hosea 4:6), you are to yield yourself back to the spirit of the world of antichrist in order to influence young people for the Lord (1 John 2:15-18). I cannot find that in the Word.
The same thing goes for Alice Cooper. He said that he “got saved because he was afraid that he would go to Hell.” I cannot find that in Scripture, but I can find where we are to fear the Lord in being converted from our sins (Psalm 19:7; Luke 12:4; Galatians 3:24) and putting our trust in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8) through godly repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10).
His stage antics during his live tours include being beheaded by the hands of a sexy nurse and a guillotine, using baby dolls and then impaling them with a shiny sword, all with spiders draped over his eyelids and a straight jacket with blood running down.
What happened to “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new”? (2 Corinthians 5:17)
The good thing is that Alice said that he could never turn his back on his fans. If that were true, then why isn’t he preaching repentance (Mark 1:15; Acts 2:38; 20:21)? A faithful witness delivereth souls (Proverbs 14:25).
I would remind my readers that Jesus Christ is the standard here (John 14:6) and not your favorite “celebrities.”
This all comes back to the mushroom converts that the modern gospel has produced. The message is “Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2), not God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life!
Jesus Loves You Gospel
My friend Ray Comfort breaks this down really well.
Characteristics of a False Convert
The Parable of the Sower is found in Matthew 13 and Luke 8. So, we are going to use the harmony of the Gospels to look at six characteristics of a false conversion.
Characteristics of a True Convert
So, what are the fruits of a new convert? Well, according to Matthew 3:8, there is the fruit of repentance. If we are soundly saved, we will have evidence of repentance. Zacchaeus said, “Behold, Lord, I give half my goods to the poor; and if I have wronged anyone, I will pay back fourfold” (Luke 19:8).
Matthew 3:10 warns that “every tree that brings not forth good fruit”—not ordinary fruit, but good fruit—“will be cut down and cast into the fire.”
So, as witnesses of Christ, we should do everything we can not just to get church members, not just to get decisions or youth group members, but with God’s help, we must make sure that those we bring to the Savior have the things that accompany salvation (Hebrews 6:9).
Friends, the key word in these alleged conversions is found in patience. When it comes to the false converts in comparison to the real converts, patience is the weapon that forces deception to reveal itself, and in many cases, if you are paying attention, it already has (Matthew 7:21-23).
With ten candidates still in the running we have three obvious front runners and two additional wildcards. Biden, Warren and Sanders are at the top. Mayor Pete (Buttigieg) and Harris round out the top five. Yang, Klobuchar, Booker, Gabbard and Steyer should pack it in. I mean, after something like fifteen debates if you’re not in the top 3-5 you should, you know - move on.
In fact, I’m willing to bet most of you went - “Steyer? Who is Steyer?” I know, right? There are too many people running. Let’s get rid of some of the candidates on the bottom. Also, Tom Steyer is a non politician, progressive billionaire who wants term limits for Congress, wants to decriminalize illegal border crossings and wants to expand the Supreme Court. Well, term limits for Congress is a fantastic idea! I’m all for that. Unfortunately, he’s polling at less than 1% so I’m not sure what he’s still doing in the race.
Anyway. Sanders is out raising them all, but seems to be consistently in the number three spot in terms of news coverage and polls. Warren, just a few weeks ago was the clear front runner but she took a huge slump, for some reason. And now it’s good old “Uncle Joe” back as the front runner. Which, you may remember, is Biden’s unofficial nickname.
Well, all of them were at it again last night at another debate that had way too many people on stage. And, I thought it was pretty clear that Mayor Pete came out on top. No one is attacking him because he’s not a front runner and so he was able to get his points across. And man o’ man Mayor Pete comes across poised, intelligent and filled to the brim with common sense and reason.
Warren did her Warren thing - Medicare for all, tax the rich. I don’t think she gained or lost ground. Same with Sanders. Biden pushed civility, which is great but I’m not sure that will help him surge up in the polls. All three of them kind of pushed their brand name. Harris, who has fallen so far behind the other front runners was more aggressive than I have seen her in the past few months and even called out President Trump for getting “punked” by North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un.
I don’t think last night’s debate changed the way anyone views the democratic candidates, with perhaps the exception of Mayor Pete. I know Pete is surging in Iowa, which is a critical caucus to win, but too many people don’t know him. But that’s the thing about him, the more people hear about him the more people are clearly like, “I don’t know who this guy is … but I like him!”
Yeah. Me too. He’s a great candidate. But … can he beat Donald Trump in the popular vote? Perhaps. But perhaps he’s too much of an underdog to win. Perhaps the Democrats need a big name to win. And they have three big names in Biden, Sanders and Warren. Mayor Pete just might have to wait four or eight more years for a legitimate shot.
And, I know we are still miles away from the finish line but sometimes I just wonder what is taking some of these politicians so long to drop out. Senator Harris is a decent progressive candidate but she’s clearly, and I mean clearly - too far behind. Drop out of the race and get back to the Senate - you know, the job you were elected for. I guess one could say the same about Senator Warren; however, she’s actually on top so there is reason for her to stay in the race. But Klobuchar? Gabbard? It’s not happening, maybe it’s time to get back to the Senate / House for your elected jobs. Booker? I mean, Booker had a great closing speech but this is just not your year. There is, as they say - a snowball's chance in hell the nomination will go to any of the folks on the bottom.
Unless some catastrophic event happens, it’s clearly going to be one of Biden, Sanders or Warren. Or, if they get really clever - a Biden / Warren ticket. Or a Sanders / Warren ticket. Or a Warren / Sanders ticket.
Or, heck - a Warren / Mayor Pete ticket. Think of that. Wow. I like it. (Probably won’t happen).
Any combination of the above will probably mount a decent challenge to President Trump. Just as long as Hillary Clinton doesn’t enter the race, which she (probably jokingly) hinted at a few days ago.
Ugh. She just won’t go away. Please, please Hillary - you lost to Obama, you lost to Trump. Leave it alone. The Dem’s don’t need more candidates.
At a graduation of a family friend, out of the blue, one in our group began lamenting that progressives tended to live in cities. She proposed that progressives should move to rural areas and “purge [such areas] of those awful conservatives.” Thus spoke the tolerant Left. I was stunned. Given the festive occasion, I kindly reminded her that this is America and we are lucky that we have all kinds of people. I wanted to ask her what we should do with the conservatives. Re-education camps? Death by a continuous loop of Bernie Sanders speeches?
It is unfortunate that such unreasonableness isn’t isolated within the D.C. swamp containment zone.
These pied pipers who offer free college, free food, free medical care, and free money for simply having a pulse freely admit they have no idea how to pay for it. Oh, yes: tax the “rich” and corporations who will pass the tax on to consumers and employees in the form of higher prices and lower wages. And eventually the heretofore untouchable middle class will be taxed directly. Let’s not forget that free food and housing are components of slavery.
These Einsteins are scientists when it comes to global warming and evolution but think it’s medically acceptable to permanently sterilize a 7-year old to avoid appearing like a “transgender” bigot. Science lesson: there are 2 genders. Every human has 23 pairs of chromosomes. The X chromosomes and Y chromosomes determine sex. With rare exceptions of random abnormalities, female is XX and male is XY.
These self-described health care experts try to debunk innovative medical care delivery methods like direct pay and direct primary care subscription practices by claiming these are reserved for the rich. Approximately, $1,500 per year ensures that you and your doctor, make your medical decisions—not the government. These “experts” are the same people who prop up the medical-insurance-government industrial complex at the expense of private physicians, writing laws that favor big-box retail clinics staffed by non-physicians. These swamp creatures equate physicians with “mid-level” practitioners with one fifth the training and education as physicians—but likely demand the chairman of the department when they themselves need medical services.
These compassionate legislators are keen on the government taking over the “social determinants of health,” including loneliness. I anxiously await an army of a government operatives coming to our homes and telling us to be happy or else. Most people just want to control their own lives, even if their life does not fit the government blueprint. If you want your life to be your own, and your body to be your own, then you cannot let the government’s foot in the door.
These forward thinkers decided it was good public policy to ban children’s fathers from the home in order for the family to receive government funds. It became normalized for the federal government to be the daddy.
These elitists castigate the middle class for not wanting homeless people sleeping and defecating in front of their houses for which they worked two jobs, saved, and sacrificed for years. Their remedy is a tent city in a middle-class neighborhood that is nowhere near theirs. These people do not want to admit that the disintegration of the family and the moral decay leading to drug use and detachment from society is the first problem that must be addressed.
And the biggest hobgoblins of them all are the peddlers of faux racism. Americans do not wake up every morning hating on each other. They ponder their family’s safety and keeping a decent job to pay their bills. Something is seriously wrong, indeed demented, when a former First Lady—unchallenged—claimed that white Americans are “still running” from minority communities when they move to another neighborhood. Perhaps they are getting away from homeless encampments (with mostly white people) or poorly run government schools in Democrat-controlled cities. Get over yourself.
Everything is not about race. Get out in the real world and sit at a local bar or café in central Mississippi and watch blacks and whites eating and laughing together. Who is the hatemonger?
America has had a few tragic well-publicized racially motivated incidents. Undaunted, we continue to strive for liberty for all—despite the calculated enmity and scab-picking by rich and famous black people who ran away from minorities to live on a $15 million estate on Martha’s Vineyard (and not in Oak Bluffs) and who expect us to swallow their vitriol-laced baloney.
This insanity is patently sick and sickening. It is about power at any cost and not what can help move America forward.
Dr. Singleton is a board-certified anesthesiologist. She is Immediate Past President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). Her opinions are her own. This column originally appeared on pennypress.com. Reprinted with permission.
Last week I presented basic facts and issues around family income inequality in America, a hot political issue in the last decade. Today, let’s turn to the related matter of wealth inequality.
First, the distinction between them. Income refers to the net money or benefits we receive each period of time – typically, a week or month. It includes pay for work; earnings from savings and investments; “transfer payments” such as social security, welfare, food stamps, health care subsidies, etc. The sum of all those items, less the taxes folks pay directly or indirectly, constitutes income.
Wealth is the net value of all we own. The value of our homes, bank and investment accounts, vehicles, personal property, businesses and real estate, etc., less the amounts we owe in mortgages, auto, consumer and student credit, etc. Economists call income a “flow” variable and wealth a “stock” variable.
Two outstanding analysts at Washington’s Cato Institute, Chris Edwards and Ryan Bourne, assisted by David Kemp, produced a 74-page in-depth analysis this month titled, “Exploring Wealth Inequality.” To best fit their findings into this column, below I quote from their summary, which has stated them far beyond my poor power to add or subtract (as Lincoln said at Gettysburg).
“Many political leaders and pundits consider wealth inequality to be a major economic and social problem. They complain about a shift of wealth to the top at everyone else’s expense and about plutocrats dominating policymaking in Washington.
“Is wealth inequality the crisis that some people believe? This study examines six aspects of wealth inequality and discusses the evidence for the claims being made.
“Section 1 describes how wealth inequality has risen in recent years but by less than is often asserted in the media. Indeed, wealth inequality has changed surprisingly little given the large economic changes in recent decades from technology and globalization. Furthermore, most estimates overstate wealth inequality because they do not include the effects of social programs.
“Section 2 argues that wealth inequality data tell us nothing about levels of poverty or prosperity and thus are not useful for guiding public policy. Wealth inequality may reflect innovation in a growing economy that is raising overall living standards, or it may reflect cronyism that causes economic damage.
“Section 3 examines the sources of wealth for the richest Americans. Most of today’s wealthy are business people who built their fortunes by adding to economic growth, and some have created major innovations that benefit all of us. The share of the wealthy who inherited their fortunes has sharply declined in recent decades.
“Section 4 looks at cronyism, which refers to insiders and businesses securing narrow tax, spending, and regulatory advantages. Cronyism is one cause of wealth inequality, and it has likely increased over time as the government has grown.
“Section 5 explains how the growing welfare state has increased wealth inequality. Government programs for retirement, healthcare, and other benefits have reduced the incentives and the ability of non wealthy households to accumulate savings and thus have increased wealth inequality.
“Section 6 examines whether wealth inequality undermines democracy, which is a frequent claim of the political left. Research shows that wealthy people do not have homogeneous views on policy and do not have an outsized ability to get their goals enacted in Washington.
“In sum, wealth inequality has increased modestly but mainly because of general economic growth and entrepreneurs creating innovations that are broadly beneficial. Nonetheless, policymakers should aim to reduce inequality by ending cronyist programs and reducing barriers to wealth-building by moderate-income households.”
The authors title their second section, “Poverty Matters, Not Inequality,” and they show that poverty has greatly decreased domestically and around the world in recent decades – greatly due to the creation of wealth by those at the top.
As I noted last week, recent research shows that when transfer payments and taxes are included, the average yearly income of American families in the lowest income quintile (20 percent) is $50,901 and that of top-quintile families is $194,906. That’s a ratio of 3.8:1, not the erroneous much higher figures often quoted by liberals, progressives, class warriors and mainstream media.
As my friend Joe Morabito notes: “The poor are not poor because the rich are rich.”
If you ever wondered why Donald J. Trump was elected our 45th President, you only needed to watch the testimony last week of William Taylor, George Kent, and Marie Yovanovitch.
If you ever wondered what Washington based bureaucrats do to represent us, you only needed to watch the testimony last week of William Taylor, George Kent, and Marie Yovanovitch.
And, if you ever wondered why real Americans refer to Washington as a swamp which needs to be drained, you only needed to watch the testimony last week of William Taylor, George Kent, and Marie Yovanovitch.
Taylor, Kent and Yovanovitch aren’t inherently bad people. But they live in their own little worlds where what they think is more important than what the President—whose pleasure they serve at—thinks. And they are an integral part of what former (and the late) President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about on his way out—the military, industrial complex.
They have—and freely admit—zero first hand experience of the subject matter allegedly being “investigated” by Adam Schiff.
Now, diplomacy—in context—is a good thing. In theory, that is what keeps mushroom clouds away from Peoria, Illinois, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Reno, Nevada among other places where you can “smell the Trump support” at the local WalMart Supercenter. But it is the President and Commander in Chief who gets to set our foreign policy—not some diplomat at State who serves at the pleasure of the President. Any more than an FBI director who also serves at the pleasure of the President. And the real world is not an episode of Madam Secretary or the West Wing.
The truth is that impeachment is purely political.
The House, if it has the votes, can impeach the President because it does not like the cut of his suit.
Ask the dumb Republicans who impeached Bill Clinton in 1998.
How do you impeach a President who has less than two years left in his second term? But Newt Gingrich did it and ended up bringing dishonor on the institution for no good reason. And did I mention that the Senate told him to pound sand? In an almost predictable vote mostly along party lines, the Senate fell way short of the 67 votes necessary to remove him from office.
So, let’s assume that the currently sitting House goes ahead with impeachment.
What do you think might happen to these guys—Adam Schiff et al—who have such a flimsy case against Trump in a Republican controlled Senate?
The Senate vote will be utterly predictable. And that’s assuming the Senate doesn’t dismiss the charges without a trial. (If this is what passes for an impeachment investigation, who’s to say the Senate cannot hold a 20 minute trial to dismiss the charges?)
The anger from the 63,000,000 voters who elected Trump and told both the media and the Washington establishment, “Enough already!” will be palpable enough to elect him again and take that anger out on the House.
People like Schiff and his little buddy Eric Swalwell may not realize this, but they are doing their best to make the House of Representatives irrelevant to the real Americans outside of the swamp. It would appear that these guys were beat up every day when they were freshmen in college by the seniors and now, they are going to show all of us.
I wasn’t in the room when our founding fathers wrote the impeachment clause, but I read a lot and I have serious questions that Adam Schiff’s version—along with Rashida Tliab’s “impeach the motherf**ker”—were what they had in mind. I’m pretty sure when they wrote the term “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” they weren’t thinking about a President doing his job.
So my question is simple.
What will the left do when what I have predicted actually happens?
Multiple states have mobilized their #LocktheClock forces to put an end to biannual time changes. Last year California passed Proposition 7, making Daylight Saving Time year-round and permanent. Other states who have proposed legislation include the following:
Some states had put forth legislation to be on Atlantic Standard Time, a time zone one hour ahead of Eastern Standard Time that essentially puts them on year-round Daylight Saving Time. These include Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Multiple health risks have been cited in scientific literature during the “Spring Forward” and are cited below, including car accidents, heart attacks and workplace injuries.
Dr. Paul Kalekas, an Internal Medicine and Attending Physician at Valley Hospital Medical Center who has practiced in Nevada for years, states, “It’s time this gets done.”
Nevada’s original bill failed to pass in Congress a few years back so he and other physicians are working to resubmit legislation.
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has introduced the Sunshine Protection Act to make daylight savings time the new, permanent standard time. States with areas exempt from daylight savings time may choose the standard time for those areas.
However, critics worry that states choosing their own time may disrupt the time zone uniformity.
So how did we end up here in the first place?
This ritual began in ancient civilizations, when daily schedules would be adjusted to the change in daylight. Later Benjamin Franklin wrote an essay for Parisians entitled “An Economical Project for Diminishing the Cost of Light” in 1784 explaining how less candles could be used if people woke up earlier, making more use of natures early light.
“Since 1950, 94 percent of mass public shootings in the United States have taken place in gun-free zones, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center.”
If a man driving a vehicle hits a man and injures or kills him, is the company that built the vehicle to be held responsible for the driver? Absolutely not!
If a man owns a hunting knife to cut up his game and ends up killing someone with it, are the manufacturers somehow responsible for the crime committed (Deuteronomy 25:1)? Are they to be held liable? Absolutely not!
No more then should gun manufacturers be held responsible for the crimes of them that choose to pull the trigger (Deuteronomy 30:19). This is what the arbitrary courts want you to believe to be the case.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines "arbitrary, " adjective [Latin arbitrarios.] 1. Depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed rules; as, an arbitrary decision; an arbitrary punishment. ARBITRARY power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
Friends, this is like blaming the manufacturers of forks and spoons for people being obese. How ridiculous.
Furthermore, how can the act be apart from the actor? It cannot (Numbers 32:23)!
Let me ask you a common sense and sincere question: Did the Lord blame the weapon when Cain killed Abel? No, He did not, He blamed Cain for killing Abel and the curse was the consequence, and rightly so (Genesis 4:1-16).
Arbitrary government is NOT American government! We are ruled by law, not the opinion of some un-elected activist that sits on the bench acting on the behalf of the highest bidder (Luke 22:48).
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” –President Thomas Jefferson
Oh, how what the courts are attempting to do in this country contradicts what our forefathers have established concerning the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights!
I want you to think of this for a moment with me, please.
The President is protected with guns.
The Congress is protected with guns.
Governors are protected with guns.
Courts are protected with guns.
Banks are protected with guns.
Factories are protected with guns.
Jewelry stores are protected with guns.
Sports events are protected with guns.
Celebrities are protected with guns.
Yet, we allow these that have been given delegated authority from “We the People,” that derive their just powers from the consent of the people that they are to serve to defend America’s children with a sign that reads: "THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE.” The irony is that the victims are to then call someone with a gun if there’s an emergency (1 Samuel 13:22).
These in government that work for “We the People” would have you believe that, somehow or another, they have delegated authority to strip their employers from their God-given right to keep and bear arms. Think Americans, think!
Well, the good news is that someone is thinking, according to theepochtimes.com.
“A Michigan state lawmaker’s newly introduced legislation to hold government agencies and private businesses liable for civil damages if anyone is injured during a shooting in a gun-free zone on their premises is a promising proposal, according to noted gun scholar John R. Lott Jr.
The plan comes after a summer of mass public shootings that received saturation media coverage, such as in Virginia Beach, where a gunman left 12 dead and five injured, and at a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas, where a gunman killed 22 and injured 24. Since then, Walmart and a host of large retail chains have banned the open carrying of firearms in their stories.
Because almost all mass public shootings take place in gun-free zones, those areas would more accurately be called “killing zones,” said state Rep. Gary Eisen, a Republican who represents St. Clair Township, about an hour’s drive northeast of Detroit.
The first bill would strip governmental agencies of immunity from civil lawsuits for incidents occurring in a “gun-free or weapon-free zone.” The second bill makes the owner or occupier of real estate who forbids such weapons “responsible for the safety of an individual who enters” that zone. Such an “individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental entity, or other legal entity” would be “liable in a civil action for damages that result from injuries that an individual sustains in the gun-free or weapon-free zone if the person failed to provide adequate security in the gun-free or weapon-free zone.”
Victor Hugo said,
“Where there is darkness crimes will be committed. The guilty one is not merely he who commits the crime but he who caused the darkness.”
When you look at the darkness that has been advocated and implemented upon Americans by corruption in our government, there is no question who the responsible party is and why they must be held responsible for their crimes against “We the People!” (Article 2, Section 4, U. S. Constitution).
Two new cases of “smartphone blindness” has been described in the last month. One case was a gentleman in China who was playing games on his phone at night and suffered a retinal artery occlusion or “eye stroke.” Another case was a woman in China, who was also playing on her phone at night but she sustained a bleed in her left eye. Just as those who suffer from cerebral strokes, a “lack of blood flow” to the retina, or layer of the eye that helps create visual images, can be caused by a clot or hemorrhage. Apparently these can be induced with excessive focusing and eye strain. This may result in temporary or permanent blindness.
Some people are being evaluated for stroke or transient ischemic attacks when they come to the ER complaining of recurrent “temporary blindness” after checking their smartphone in the dark. This phenomenon, known as ‘smartphone blindness’, has been experienced by many of us when we have the sensation of dimmed vision or poor visual acuity, feeling punished for peeking at our email when we should be sleeping.
In 2016, doctors reviewed the cases of two women who experienced episodes of “temporary blindness”; as the ladies put their cell phones down, one eye could not see the cell phone for 15 minutes. Their vision restored after this length of time.Doctors investigated the cases thoroughly with a variety of medical tests including MRI’s and couldn’t find the cause.
Finally they conclude these transient episodes of “vision loss” were harmless, in that one eye was being used to look at the phone and the other eye needed time to “catch up”. When the women, as many of us do, check our phones, one eye is snugly closed and resting on a pillow while the other is available to look at the phone. When the ladies would turn over, the closed eye didn’t have a chance to catch up to the increased brightness of the phone screen, hence having a dimmed view.
If one uses both eyes to look at the screen, this phenomenon does not happen.
Studies surfaced a few years ago where great lengths of smartphone use can cause retinal detachment. In these cases the layer of the retina which focuses images, detaches from the back of the eye, causing serious vision loss. Though there are treatments, if not treated early can cause permanent blindness in the affected eye since the retina loses its blood and oxygen supply when detached. A woman from China had been using her smartphone for 2-3 hours in the dark each night when this occurs.
Smartphones have also been linked to myopia, nearsightedness and sleeping disorders as the blue light emitted from the screen can disrupt melatonin production.
A recent study found that 30% of adults spend more than 9 hours a day using their smartphone. Physicians recommend avoiding extended use, adjust settings to black text on white background, and with this recent case study, use both eyes to look at the screen when using the phone at night.
Increasing the size of the font helps your eyes since they don’t need to strain as much to read. Try to look at your smartphone with a distance of 1 1/2 feet. Blinking often helps rest the eyes as well and keeps them lubricated and moist.
Additionally, avoid using the phone in the dark, but in a lit room.
Finally its good to use the 20,20,20 rule. After every 20 minutes of use, look away at something 20 feet away for 20 seconds. This may help avoid eye strain from excessive smartphone use.
Income inequality among Americans has been a major subject of debate for a decade, and ever more so with leftwing extremists now dominating the ranks of Democratic presidential aspirants. So, let’s get the basic facts and issues straight.
A salient claim in this area comes from the French economist Thomas Piketty in his 2014 book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, a 700-page tome. His starting point is that the rate of return on capital investment is generally significantly greater than the growth rate of a market economy (or, r>>g). This is generally uncontested.
So, Piketty concludes that the rich, whose incomes derive greatly from their ownership of capital, will get ever greatly richer. On the other hand, the middle and lower classes, whose incomes derive mainly from their labor, will see those incomes increase only at the growth rate of the economy. Hence, they will fall ever farther behind the upper-income people.
If that were the full story, why didn’t income inequality spiral up long ago? In part, it’s because taxes burden upper classes very disproportionately and government transfer payments (mainly welfare, food stamps and health-care subsidies) are concentrated on the lower classes. Piketty’s comparisons are based on pre-tax income, not including transfer payments, as are almost all the data advanced by those obsessing about income inequality.
These folks also fail to adjust for declining household size in recent decades when they allege falsely that middle and lower family income levels have not increased. And Piketty’s analysis overlooks that the wealthy usually divide their estates among charities and various heirs and other folks when they pass it on, thus counteracting the fast growth of family incomes based on capital.
But the important point is that taxes and transfer payments have continued to grow relative to our economy. So, they now overwhelm every other factor, as shown by recent research by Phil Gramm, former economics professor and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee; and John F. Early, twice assistant commissioner at the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
When we consider family incomes after taxes and public and private transfer payments, the story is very different from that based on the pre-tax and -transfers data. That’s because 80 percent of all taxes are paid by the top two income quintiles (that is, the top 40 percent) and 70 percent of all transfer payments are received by the bottom two quintiles. Aggregate taxes paid and transfers received by the middle quintile are almost exactly equal.
The average bottom-quintile household earns $4,908 annually while the average top-quintile household earns $295,904, or 60 times as much. But when we consider the $45,993 additional income the lowest-quintile homes get from public and private transfer payments, less taxes they pay, their average incomes rise to $50,901. For the top quintile, the net of taxes and transfers is a reduction of $100,998, leaving them with $194,906.
So, the real ratio between the top and bottom quintiles is only 3.8 times, not 60 times.
And government and the private sector shift enough net income to the lowest quintile to raise their net income to middle-class levels at $50,901.
So, is a 3.8:1 ratio fair and reasonable?
One important fact is that income mobility is higher in America than in most other countries.
Also, 50 years of increasing transfer payments and rising and progressive taxes have had another effect. When the War on Poverty transfers began in 1967, nearly 70 percent of bottom quintile prime-working-age adults were employed. Today, that figure is only 36 percent. For all the top three quintiles, however, labor-force participation has increased.
Ultimately, though, the question depends on what fairness is, as much as it does on data. Progressives, populists and class warriors erroneously claim it means equal outcomes for everyone. They forget that in market systems income flows to people roughly in proportion to the value they deliver to others – that is, proportionately to their contribution to human wellbeing and the public interest. Not so for systems that politically allocate resources.
Finally, recent research shows that three-quarters of the high incomes made by entrepreneurs flows from their own “human capital” contributions, not from the financial capital they employ. So, yes, 3.8:1 seems quite fair.
Stock photos of “healthcare workers” who attend patients—physicians are no longer distinguishable—usually feature a stethoscope draped around the neck.
But some, such as cardiologist Eric Topol, consider the stethoscope obsolete, nothing more than a pair of “rubber tubes.”
The most important part of the stethoscope is the part between the ears. But some think that will be replaced by artificial intelligence, and the rubber tubes by sophisticated electronic gizmos costing at least ten times as much as the humble stethoscope.
High tech is wonderful and increasingly capable, but if the stethoscope is dying, so is the art of clinical medicine.
The proper use of the stethoscope requires the doctor to touch, listen to the patient, and spend some time with a living person, not a computer. Patient and physician must cooperate: “Stop breathing,” “Take a big deep breath,” “Lean forward,” and so on.
It may be true, as Dr. James Thomas said, that graduates in internal medicine and emergency medicine miss as many as half of murmurs using a stethoscope. There are several reasons for this. One is not taking enough time to listen in a quiet room, and failing to perform the special maneuvers required to bring out an otherwise inaudible murmur (lean forward and exhale fully, turn onto your left side, squat then stand up, etc.).
The other is inadequate training. There are excellent recordings of heart sounds and murmurs, which of course would take time away from the time-devouring electronic medical record or “systems-based” medicine. And a recording is not the same thing as a live patient. Much of today’s teaching in physical diagnosis may be by “patient instructors”—paid actors pretending to be patients, who are evaluating the students as the students examine them. Rounds may be in a conference room, focused on the electronic record, instead of at the bedside.
In the old days, all the members of the team got to examine a real patient who had an interesting finding, with the patient’s permission and under the supervision of an attending physician. It seemed to me that patients usually enjoyed being the center of attention and the star of the show, and hearing the professor discuss their case. We learned how to help patients to sit up, and about hairy chests, layers of extra insulation, noisy lung sounds, shortness of breath, and other impediments to an easy examination.
The stethoscope is not just for heart murmurs. It’s for finding subtleties in careful, slow measurement of the blood pressure. It’s for extra or abnormal heart sounds. One can sometimes hear evidence of vascular problems inside the skull, or in the arteries supplying the brain, kidneys, or limbs. Or signs of intestinal obstruction. One can check to make sure a breathing tube is in the right place.
I don’t know of any bedside technologic wonders for examining the lungs. The stethoscope can detect sensitive signs of heart failure, pneumonia, fluid in the chest, collapsed lung, or airway obstruction. One can listen frequently to monitor changes in the patient’s status—much more efficiently than bringing the portable x-ray machine around.
The stethoscope works even when the power is off, the batteries are dead, the computer is down, or some circuit in the ultrasound device is malfunctioning. It works in facilities too poor to have the latest technology, or with patients who can’t afford to pay for a more expensive examination.
The stethoscope has tremendous capabilities in trained hands. Patients might want to evaluate whether they have a clinician who knows how to use it or is just carrying around a prop or status symbol. If you have symptoms suggestive of a heart or lung problem, does the doctor listen to all the lung fields—upper, mid, and lower, front and back? To at least four places for heart sounds? Are you asked to cough, say “e,” whisper something, take deep breaths or slow quiet ones, or do other maneuvers if something in the history or examination suggests a possible problem? Is the tv off, and are visitors asked to be quiet?
Everybody including doctors loves fancy technology. But before we toss out the old reliable tools, backed by two centuries of experience, how about some serious comparative studies like those the proponents of evidence-based medicine constantly demand?
Jane M. Orient, M.D. obtained her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona in Tucson, and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1974. Her views are her own. This is an edited version of her column that originally appeared in pennypress.com. Reprinted with permission.
Apparently, AT&T bought CNN thinking it was some kind of an entertainment outlet.
It is, but only to those of us who understand that Ted Turner’s creation has devolved into something which no longer resembles, in any way, journalism.
How bad is CNN’s coverage of the President?
Well, depending on who you choose to believe, studies from Harvard to the Media Research Center place the ratio of positive to negative coverage between 91% negative to 93%. Every media analyst agrees. CNN’s coverage is so biased that it can hardly be called coverage.
And it seems to be cheerfully brought to you by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. At 208 S. Akard Street in Dallas, Texas. CEO Randall Stephenson and Chief operating Officer John Stankey.
When these guys bought Directv, I was a fan. When they brought out Directv Now (Now ATT TV Now) as a streaming service I was and still am a fan. When they bought Warner Media, I was OK with that.
I figured that CNN was already so screwed up, it had only one way to go—up. I was wrong.
I was against the Justice Department’s antitrust action. Still am.
That said, who knew that the two executives I listed above (along with their emails) were closet liberals?
My suspicion still is that they’re not. What they, are, I think, is scared to death—like the dog which caught the car. They have no idea what to do. Owning HBO is one thing. You can always disavow Bill Maher.
But a news outlet? That involves editorial judgment and CNN already had less than none. It needs grown-ups to instill some discipline. Stephenson and Stankey are supposed to be those adults. Only nobody told them. They were too busy getting Hollywood elite sweet nothings blown up their skirts.
On one hand, they don’t want to make the left mad. After all, the left controls show biz—right? On the other hand, they really don’t want to have to choose up sides against a President who could easily be re-elected. Much of their communications business is heavily regulated. And, just to make things interesting, an activist management company, Elliott Management, took a $3.2-billion position in AT&T and wants change as well as seats on the Board.
So, wouldn’t the smart money be to make those clowns in Atlanta actually run a news outlet as opposed to taking virtually every opportunity to tilt to the radical left?
Apparently, Mr. Stephenson’s testicles were there when he bought into the entertainment business, but seem to have softened when it comes to making tough decisions regarding the content of his acquisitions which could ultimately send his share price plummeting.
Here’s a hint as to how another executive has handled it.
Apple’s Tim Cook—hardly a Trump fan—has kept an open channel to the President even though he supported Trump’s 2016 opponent.
That makes sense, considering their common interests, especially where it comes to China, trade and intellectual property.
Do you really think Trump would refuse Stephenson’s call?
As long as his company is channeling Nancy Pelosi, it is probably a difficult call to have.
But if Stephenson and Stankey could say, with straight faces, that they are aiming to make CNN a “just the facts” news outlet, you can bet Trump would take that call.
It’s high time the folks on Akard Street in Dallas started worrying about their shareholder value. They could fix CNN in two weeks. Nobody is asking that they try and duplicate Fox. Just be fair. If they don’t, and 63,000,000 Trump voters take offense, well, they don’t make fallout shelters deep enough to protect them from the economic consequences.
Some of you are trying to get a head start before the family makes you come up with a New Year’s resolution to quit vaping and smoking. So you’ve cut back on tobacco and nicotine and have decided to quit. Awesome! Within the first half hour of quitting, studies have found your blood pressure and heart rate improve, so your health starts to improve immediately!
So, way to go!!!! But now what? It’s not that easy. You’ve got cravings.
Not being able to manage these cravings can put you at risk of relapsing back into nicotine dependence.
Withdrawal from nicotine can manifest in any of the following:
Firstly don’t be afraid to get help if you need to. Nicotine is a powerful, addictive drug and retraining your body to not ask for it is a challenging process. Smokefree.gov offers multiple resources to help one quit smoking/vaping.
Your medical provider can offer you nicotine replacement therapy to help you wean slowly, or medications such as (brand names) Chantix and Wellbutrin that can help you with your cravings as you cut back or quit.
Therapy and counselling can also be very beneficial while you are weaning off nicotine.
But some of you will want to quit cold turkey. How do you manage the cravings then?
So we break this down into biological and psychological factors.
Biologically, we can hit this a few ways. One, is the food choices you make can help with your cravings.
Vegetables like celery and carrots are great quick-to-grab veggies when you’re in a bind. Citrus fruits like oranges work well. Bananas with their vitamin B and potassium melt in your mouth and don’t leave room for a cigarette. Potatoes have potassium and when not loaded up with butter and cheese are….well… not as yummy.
Peppermint is good at curbing cravings, so when you’re walking out of a restaurant don’t forget to grab some of those free candies sitting there. Ginseng and ginger help with cravings as well, and don’t forget fiber. Stuffing your mouth with oats, bran and fibrous foods keep you so busy trying to pick them out of your teeth that you are too exhausted to smoke. Top all of this with lots and lots of water, and you’ll find yourself off the nicotine in no time.
Let’s celebrate. Some one grab me a beer….no wait! No alcohol! Alcohol fuels your cravings as does meat and caffeine. Sorry, I never said it would be easy.
Exercise also helps because it will help you keep busy, increase your endorphins and works on the weight gain that might accompany smoking cessation. Take a nice stroll every time you feel the need to grab a cigarette.
Which transitions nicely into psychological ways to quit.
Distraction is huge. As the cravings come on, distract yourself by exercise, reading, dancing, or writing about your journey towards a smoke-free life to help others.
Have index cards written out with reasons to quit.
Have a disgusting picture of tobacco-destroyed lung in the kitchen or wherever you get the urge to smoke.
And get your friends and coworkers on board to help. If they vape/smoke in front of you, it will make it that much harder. Have a friend, family member designated as your support guide who texts you encouraging messages throughout the day as you try to quit. Remind them that the content cannot include chores or reminders to pick things up on the way home. There……if these tricks don’t help you quit vaping/smoking, at least you can use them to get out of chores…..