Washington Chapel Flea Market, Remember a Vet, Blue Lives Matter, Independence Day Parade.
ECONOMIST – Under Attack; ECONOMIST – Universal Basic Incomes.
LEADS: BORDELON – Struggle will continue; THOMAS – Sanders’ supporters pissed; KING – Hillary did not win.
PA: KNEPPER – Pa booze sales; ESACK – Kane’s twin wants more $
END NOTES: MARK LEVIN 6/7/16
Remember a Vet!
Pat Martin: June 11th, Flea Market, Washington Memorial Chapel, Valley Forge
OUR ANNUAL FLEA MARKET IS NEXT SATURDAY ~ JUNE 11, 8:00 AM -3:00 PM. Come and see a gathering of Antiques, Collectables, Attic Treasures, Crafts, Artwork, Food, Baked Goods, music, fun and much, much more! As always, we need lots of volunteers to make this a great day and it is not too late to offer your help. . Please sign the clipboards in the Welcome Center and the Lafayette Room, as well as the Cabin Shop and the Bookstore.. Home baked goods are always appreciated at the Baked Goods Table.
Contact Laura Mager at email@example.com if you are interested in renting a space and a table. Space Reservation – $15, 8′ Table & Space for $28 (Spaces approximately 10×10).
Citizens for Liberty/Valley Forge Patriots: Upper Merion Police Appreciation Day:#BlueLivesMatter
Please join us and bring your family. This is definitely a family-friendly event!
Saturday, June 18, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.
U.S. Route 202 and Mall Blvd., King of Prussia, PA, 19406.
We will be outside on the sidewalk and grass at this intersection which is loated in between the Plaza and the Court at The King of Prussia Mall.
Please park in the larger lot adjacent to the Wells Fargo Bank on this corner.
This event is being held to show our support for the men and women in blue that put their lives on the line for us every day. Theirs is a thankless job and they need to be shown that people do appreciate them.
We are looking for volunteers and donations. We hope to serve the following: coffee, cake, fresh made sandwiches, and water, to all Upper Merion Police Officers and PA State Troopers that stop by.
Bring your American flags, your LARGE pro-police posters, banners, balloons, and your family. Join us. Tables and chairs will be on site. Please feel free to brings chairs.
The Upper Merion Police were informed of this event and are looking forward to it.
All monetary donations can be sent to “Citizens for Liberty” P.O. Box 782, Oaks PA. 19456, no later than June 15th. This event will be co-hosted by “Valley Forge Patriots” and “Bucks/MontCo Overpasses.”
Our mailing address is:
PO Box 782
Oaks, PA, 19456; Our telephone: 484-424-3619
Janet: Independence Day March, July 4th
Our secession from Great Britain will be honored this year with George Washington crossing the Delaware River in a boat, in tow, while our professional singer is aboard entertaining with Patriotic songs. We plan to have Revolutionary soldiers in costume, and the original 13 colony flags. Events that have happened over the recent years will be memorialized to raise awareness to the crowd. Feel free to uphold your God-given and 2nd Amendment right.
Bring your different American flags. Dress in Colonial garb. Wear your red, white, and blue.
Bring large and easily read posters. Bring banners (we need attendees to hold quite a few that we have). Bring your family. We need proud Americans to throw out 50 pounds of candy, and literature pertaining to our organization.
Afterwards, for whoever cares to gather on the outside patio in the center of the village at Basta Pasta, 4052 Skippack Pike, will have themselves a lot of fun with the dozens who join
us for great food, drink, and conversation!
Plan to join us at 10a.m. at the Skippack Fire Company, 1230 Bridge Road
(right off of Rt 73/Skippack Pike) to plan our lineup. The parade begins at 11,
and lasts approximately one hour. Jane Taylor Toal, CEO Citizens for Liberty, PO Box 782, Oaks, PA, 194546; Telephone: 484-424-3619
Economist: Under Attack
“. . . Free speech is under attack in three ways. First, repression by governments has increased. Several countries have reimposed cold-war controls or introduced new ones. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia enjoyed a free-for-all of vigorous debate. Under Vladimir Putin, the muzzle has tightened again. All the main television-news outlets are now controlled by the state or by Mr Putin’s cronies. Journalists who ask awkward questions are no longer likely to be sent to labour camps, but several have been murdered.
China’s leader, Xi Jinping, ordered a crackdown after he took over in 2012, toughening up censorship of social media, arresting hundreds of dissidents and replacing liberal debate in universities with extra Marxism. In the Middle East the overthrow of despots during the Arab spring let people speak freely for the first time in generations. This has lasted in Tunisia, but Syria and Libya are more dangerous for journalists than they were before the uprisings; and Egypt is ruled by a man who says, with a straight face: “Don’t listen to anyone but me.”
Words, sticks and stones
Second, a worrying number of non-state actors are enforcing censorship by assassination. Reporters in Mexico who investigate crime or corruption are often murdered, and sometimes tortured first. Jihadists slaughter those they think have insulted their faith. When authors and artists say anything that might be deemed disrespectful of Islam, they take risks. Secular bloggers in Bangladesh are hacked to death in the street (see article); French cartoonists are gunned down in their offices. The jihadists hurt Muslims more than any others, not least by making it harder for them to have an honest discussion about how to organise their societies.
Third, the idea has spread that people and groups have a right not to be offended. This may sound innocuous. Politeness is a virtue, after all. But if I have a right not to be offended, that means someone must police what you say about me, or about the things I hold dear, such as my ethnic group, religion, or even political beliefs. Since offence is subjective, the power to police it is both vast and arbitrary.
Nevertheless, many students in America and Europe believe that someone should exercise it. Some retreat into the absolutism of identity politics, arguing that men have no right to speak about feminism nor whites to speak about slavery. Others have blocked thoughtful, well-known speakers, such as Condoleezza Rice and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, from being heard on campus (see article).
Concern for the victims of discrimination is laudable. And student protest is often, in itself, an act of free speech. But university is a place where students are supposed to learn how to think. That mission is impossible if uncomfortable ideas are off-limits. And protest can easily stray into preciousness: the University of California, for example, suggests that it is a racist “micro-aggression” to say that “America is a land of opportunity”, because it could be taken to imply that those who do not succeed have only themselves to blame.
The inconvenient truth
Intolerance among Western liberals also has wholly unintended consequences. Even despots know that locking up mouthy but non-violent dissidents is disreputable. Nearly all countries have laws that protect freedom of speech. So authoritarians are always looking out for respectable-sounding excuses to trample on it. National security is one. Russia recently sentenced Vadim Tyumentsev, a blogger, to five years in prison for promoting “extremism”, after he criticised Russian policy in Ukraine. “Hate speech” is another. China locks up campaigners for Tibetan independence for “inciting ethnic hatred”; Saudi Arabia flogs blasphemers; Indians can be jailed for up to three years for promoting disharmony “on grounds of religion, race…caste…or any other ground whatsoever”.
The threat to free speech on Western campuses is very different from that faced by atheists in Afghanistan or democrats in China. But when progressive thinkers agree that offensive words should be censored, it helps authoritarian regimes to justify their own much harsher restrictions and intolerant religious groups their violence. When human-rights campaigners object to what is happening under oppressive regimes, despots can point out that liberal democracies such as France and Spain also criminalise those who “glorify” or “defend” terrorism, and that many Western countries make it a crime to insult a religion or to incite racial hatred.
Economist: “Universal basic incomes”
“ON JUNE 5th the Swiss overwhelmingly voted to reject an initiative that would have amended the constitution and required the government to take steps towards implementing a universal basic income—an unconditional cash payment given to all citizens. Supporters had favoured an income of SFr2,500 ($2,500) per month. Yet the universal basic income seems to be having a moment. The idea has the backing of people from wildly different parts of the ideological spectrum: like Charles Murray, a libertarian-minded scholar at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, and Andy Stern, an American labour leader. The tech world is interested too; Y Combinator, a tech accelerator, is commissioning research on the policy. How would they work and why are people so interested in them?
“The idea behind a basic income for all is actually quite old. Thomas Paine reasoned in an essay published in 1797 that—in exchange for a social consensus in favour of private property rights—governments ought to pay everyone £15 per year. Politicians flirted with the notion off and on through the industrial revolution but generally built welfare states along different lines: as programmes of insurance for those who, because of age or bad luck, found themselves without work. Over the past decade, however, interest in basic incomes has grown alongside worries that the wages earned by workers are not rising quickly enough to boost living standards (or not rising at all, in some cases). Growth in pay has been disappointing for workers in many countries since 2000 or so, and the share of total income earned by workers (as opposed to owners of firms or land) has declined. Some basic-income supporters worry that powerful new technologies, like machine intelligence, will make life still harder for workers in future.
“Setting up a basic income would be no easy matter. To pay every adult and child an income of about $10,000 per year, a country as rich as America would need to raise the share of GDP collected in tax by nearly 10 percentage points and cannibalise most non-health social-spending programmes. More generous programmes would require bigger tax increases still. There would be benefits. Poorer workers (and people who work for no income, like stay-at-home mums) would get a big boost to their incomes. Many people might use the payment to invest time and money in education or training. Entrepreneurship would become less risky. A more robust safety net would give workers more bargaining power with employers, and force firms to work harder to retain workers (and to make productivity-boosting investments). Yet there would also be big downsides. Many people might choose not to work at all; social tensions might rise. The availability of a basic income would almost certainly harden attitudes towards immigration. . .”
GOP . . .
Joseph Murray, Breitbart: “Donald Trump Is Correct To Hit ‘La Raza’ Judge For Latino Identity Politics”
“’This is one of the worst mistakes Trump has made. I think it’s inexcusable.’
“Those words were spoken by Newt Gingrich – a man believed to be on Donald Trump’s Vice Presidential shortlist – during an interview on ‘Fox News Sunday.’
“What mistake had the presumptive Republican nominee made that he earned the rebuke of an ally?
“Trump had questioned the impartiality of a federal judge.
“The controversy erupted when Trump told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Gonzalo Curiel – the judge in the Trump University class action lawsuit – might not give him a fair shake because of the judge’s connection to Mexican political activism. After critics bemoaned such an accusation as racism, Trump doubled down on “Face the Nation.”
‘[Judge Curiel] is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine,’ Trump told CBS’s John Dickerson. ‘But I say he’s got bias.’ The club Trump was referring to was La Raza Lawyers; an organization with the stated mission ‘to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state.’
“Translated, ‘la raza’ means ‘the race.’ Imagine the outcry if white attorneys from Mississippi, such as this author, started a legal association called ‘The Race’ with the stated mission to promote the interest of white, Southern communities. Hollywood stars and entertainers, such as Bryan Adams, would boycott the state in perpetuity.
“Trump’s suggestion that a Hispanic judge may treat him unfairly because of Trump’s border security proposals, such as the wall, challenges the claim that liberal judges engaged in identity politics are never biased against non-liberals. And while Democrats were enraged by Trump’s challenge, Trump struck fear into the hearts of establishment Republicans not accustomed to challenging the politically correct code to which they have previously surrendered. . .”
Also – Nick Gass, Politico: “Christie: Trump ‘not racist,’ has ‘right’ to express opinions on judge”
“Donald Trump has the ‘right’ to express his opinion about the U.S. federal judge presiding over Trump University lawsuits, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie asserted Tuesday, defending the presumptive Republican nominee from criticism after he remarked that Judge Gonzalo Curiel would not be fair to him because of his Mexican heritage.
“‘In the end, there are always going to be conflicts regarding civil lawsuits,’ Christie told reporters in Mendham Township, New Jersey. ‘There are always going to be opinions. Those are Donald’s opinions. And he has the right to express them, the same way anybody else has the right to express their views regarding how they’re treated in the civil or criminal courts in this country. That’s part of what free speech is about.’
“Christie said it ‘kind of bothers’ him that the other side is reacting the way it is, particularly Hillary Clinton, who he said is “taking this kind of high and mighty position of hers when Secretary Clinton’s had a lot to say over the course of her career as well regarding vast right-wing conspiracies that turned out not to exist in impugning the integrity of lots of other people. . .” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/chris-christie-trump-not-racist-223994 Also – Mr. Hewitt & Mr. Ryan view Trump’s comments as “racist” rather than an objective description of some of Judge Gonzolo Curiel’s memberships in organizations that help Mexicans sneak into the United States. For example, Hewitt cut off a caller Tuesday morning who drew some of those activities to his attention . . . establishment pawns? Does the “establishment” want Trump to lose?????
See Jerome Corsi, WND: “Judge, law firm bringing Trump U case both tied to La Raza” http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-judges-group-tied-to-national-council-of-laraza/
LEADS . . .
Brendan Bordelon, NRO: “Struggle Will Continue”
Careful Bern, Uncle Bo might talk to you! Irony – partially black guy tells old Jew that he can’t run for office . . .
“. . . Sanders started off his election-night speech on a pensive note, and for a moment it looked as if the curmudgeonly socialist had finally figured out that his adopted party was moving on without him. “I am enormously optimistic about the future of our country when so many young people have come on board,” he said. “Our vision will be the future of America.” “Then, he dropped the hammer. ‘We are going to fight hard to win the primary in Washington, D.C., and then we take our fight for social, economic, and environmental justice to Philadelphia!” Sanders suddenly crowed, igniting a defiant crowd. “I am pretty good in arithmetic, and I know the fight in front of us is a pretty steep fight, but we will continue to fight for every vote and every delegate.’ “‘Thank you, and the struggle continues!’ Sanders concluded, raising a fist in rebellion against the Democratic establishment and setting off a thunderous tidal wave of waving blue Bernie signs. “It’s a body blow to Democratic-party unity, which remains an elusive goal more than a month after Donald Trump sewed up the Republican nomination. Especially after last month’s contentious state Democratic convention in Nevada, where Sanders supporters slung death threats at pro-Clinton attendees and at times came close to violence, Democratic leaders — including some Sanders backers — had expressed hope that Sanders would start backing off after California’s vote. “But even though he now looks on track to lose that vote, he’s promised to soldier on regardless. With his supporters still seething over what they see as a “rigged” primary and with Sanders doing nothing to talk them off the ledge, it’s easy to see why Democrats fear a repeat of Nevada, on a national scale, this July. . .” http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436331/bernie-sanders-california-primary-loss-fights
Ken Thomas, AP: “Sanders supporters angry with news of Clinton’s victory”
“SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Supporters of Bernie Sanders expressed outrage in the hours leading up to Tuesday’s primary elections, upset that The Associated Press and several television networks had already declared rival Hillary Clinton the party’s presumptive nominee.
Clinton secured the commitments of enough delegates to win the party’s nomination on the eve of voting in California, New Jersey and four other states, according to an AP count.
She now has the support of 1,812 pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses, and the support of 571 superdelegates — or the 2,383 needed to become the presumptive nominee.
During a Monday evening rally in San Francisco, Sanders didn’t mention the news that Clinton had reached the milestone. But from the stage of the rally and among the more than 10,000 supporters who cheered on the Vermont senator, the emotions ranged from incredulity to anger.
“‘When the mainstream media calls the polls, calls the election, because they’re already planning to do it to suppress the vote in California, we will fight on,’ said Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator and one of Sanders’ top surrogates. . .”
Shaun King, NY Daily News: “Hillary Clinton did not win the Democratic Primary, she won a secret survey of party elites”
“On Monday, on the eve of the most important day in the primary, on a day where not a single vote was cast, Hillary Clinton was surprisingly declared the winner of the Democratic Primary.
Tuesday was scheduled to be the single biggest day of the entire Democratic Primary season with a total of 694 pledged delegates up for grabs in California, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and New Mexico.
“In the past 45 days alone, more than 650,000 new voters registered in California and the state announced that with 72% of available voters registered, it was the highest percentage of people ever registered for primaries in the state.
“This should have been a celebration for the Democratic Party as it welcomed record numbers of new voters into the fold. Instead, something far more nefarious and underhanded has happened. New voters didn’t put Hillary Clinton over the top. Pledged delegates didn’t seal the deal. It wasn’t a recount of a primary or caucus.
“It was a survey – an anonymous survey.
“Yes, you read that correctly – a survey. The Associated Press conducted a secret survey of super-delegates, in which they promised to protect their identities, and determined that just enough of them, the perfect number actually, said they intended to vote for Hillary Clinton 50 days from now during the Democratic Convention. For the AP, that was enough to go ahead and call the race for her.
Let me say that in a different way.
“A secret survey of politicians and party insiders on whether or not they will actually vote for Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Convention on July 25 in Philadelphia is what the AP used to call this race a done deal. . .”
PA . . .
Leo Knepper, CAP: “Liquor Modernization: It’s Better Than Nothing”
“On Tuesday, the Pennsylvania House overwhelmingly passed HB 1690 to modernize Pennsylvania’s Prohibition-era alcohol sales. The bill passed the Senate in December of 2015. By all indications, Governor Wolf will sign the legislation into law. If HB 1690 is signed, it will make the purchase of wine and beer somewhat more convenient for consumers.
“The biggest changes will be that some grocery stores will now be able to sell wine in addition to beer if they have a separate checkout area. Also, some gas stations meeting specific criteria will also be able to sell beer. Gas stations will require special approval from the PLCB and must have a separate checkout area for beer purchases. Unfortunately, the PLCB will still control wholesale of wine and spirits. State stores will still be the only show in town when it comes to making the purchase of spirits. Furthermore, the PLCB will now be able to engage in promotional pricing to encourage increased consumption of alcohol, but they will also be charged with enforcing the law and encouraging “responsible” consumption.
“One final negative we came across when reviewing the fiscal notes for the legislation was the inclusion of $2 million in corporate welfare. Pennsylvania government will now be able to award up to $1 million in grants to increase the production of wine and an additional $1 million in grants to increase the production of beer and malt beverages. Oddly enough, Pennsylvania became the number one craft beer producer in the country earlier this year without any government assistance. Keep this $2 million in mind over the course of the upcoming budget debate when you hear someone say spending has been cut to the bone.”
Steve Esack, Morning Call: “Kathleen Kane’s office faces discrimination complaint – from her twin sister”
“Since Attorney General Kathleen Kane took office in 2013, her administration has been pulled into court and labor hearings by employees claiming they were unfairly or illegally demoted, suspended or fired in violation of union contracts or the constitution.
“Now Kane’s office faces another labor complaint — from her twin sister.
Ellen Granahan, a chief deputy attorney general, has filed a wage and gender discrimination complaint against the Office of Attorney General, according to a federal document reviewed by The Morning Call.
Granahan’s $88,509 salary is 17 to 37 percent lower than what agency lawyers with similar titles earn, she claims in a complaint filed Dec. 30 with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. . .”
END NOTES . . .
Mark Levin 6/7/16
“On Tuesday’s Mark Levin show, Donald Trump makes this stupid comment about the judge who’s Mexican and then he’s under attack by Republicnas such as Bob Corker, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan; the very people he says he gets along with. You can’t trust these establishment guys. Did they attack President Obama 1/100th as much as they attack other Republicans?
“Also, Donald Trump has done damage to himself and so have his surrogates and advisors. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, we can thank the Trump surrogates for her victory. After that, according to Sen. Mitch McConnell all you need is a president to sign something into law or veto a bill. As conservatives we won’t have a shot until he is ousted in the next Kentucky Senate election.
“Later, Hillary Clinton should be indicted over her email scandal. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice is obstructing justice and is in full cover up mode for her. We have a women running for president who is in violation of the Espionage Act and the Federal Records Act. If somehow Hillary is cleared of this scandal, she will use the investigation as a political weapon to gather sympathy.”