Avocapacalypse is Upon Us!

News Flash: The same people who peddle the merits of paying higher taxes in hopes of reducing planetary temperatures are currently bemoaning the pending avocado price increase if President Donald Trump enforces the 5%- 25% tariff on Mexico for failing to control potential illegal aliens on their side of the U.S./Mexican border.

A few months ago, somewhere in the annals of the DNC headquarters, the person in charge of Democratic talking points recently made the decision to present rising avocado prices as the key rationale behind protesting the President’s tariff.  Just as obedient mouthpieces do, the press immediately jumped on the looming Avocapacalypse with all of the eagerness of young journalism interns trying to break their way into the news world. In early April, Bloomberg Economics blamed the tariff threats for a 34% price increase, CBS News touts a 44% increase and as recently as this week, CNBC lamented that Chipotle will see a $15 million expense increase if the President follows through on his threat.

The hipster jokes practically write themselves. Especially when one considers that avocado prices increased 125% in 2017 alone, according to CNN Money. But set aside the frightening perspective of $15 avocado toast for the moment, and ask yourself the obvious questions: Is that it? Is that the argument against a 5% tariff? Do the talking heads on the left honestly comprehend what is at stake here?

They do, but they don’t want you to comprehend the enormity of the border issue. To begin, what is at stake, according to an April 21 article from The Hill, is the following:

“Even after deducting the $19 billion in taxes paid by illegal immigrants, the 12.5 million of them living in the country results in a $116 billion burden on the economy and taxpayers each year.”

$116 billion dollars is a LOT of avocados. To put this dollar figure in perspective, Statista reports that the total 2018 worldwide avocado market was valued at $13.8 billion. So, why did they choose this particular hill on which to die?  Undoubtedly because the “Avocapacalypse” directly affects the much fought for 23-38 year old voters, otherwise known as Millennials.  Known as the “Me Me Me” generation, the bulk of millennials have been psychologically classified as predominately narcissistic (not ALL of them, don’t shoot the messenger), which means they loathe being inconvenienced by any of life’s  trivialities, such as paying for college loans, enduring the weight of personal responsibility and missing their Turkey-Avocado BLT lunches.

It is no secret that Democrats are hedging their bets on the overwhelmingly left-leaning Millennial voters  to pull them through the 2020 presidential election. It should come as no surprise then, as crazy as the argument seems to the rest of us, that the party of “free stuff” will use the threat of being inconvenienced to rile the Millennial masses. The Democrat’s plan does not have to be foolproof or long-lived in order to bring more Millennials to the voting booth in 2020, it simply has to tie in with the perceived “injustice” of having to enter this country legally. Logic has no place in this game, for if it did, it would be relatively simple to show them the cost of this foolishness and point out how inconvenienced they will be when they are on the hook to foot the bill for the foreseeable future. Likewise, the issues of human trafficking, drug smuggling, and illegal weapons entering U.S. soil at a phenomenal rate should cause each of them to reflect on the real injustices of an open, unprotected border.  The true wrongs will be to their children and their children’s children, but unfortunately, that travesty will happen in a time that many Millennials truly believe will never come. After all, the world is supposed to end in twelve years due to rising planetary temperatures, according to their political leaders on the left.

Make no mistake; tariffs are not ideal for a free market, as they punish the consumer more than the supplier forced to pay the penalty. However, as a short-term tool to draw the leaders of another nation to the negotiating table, a tariff can be a persuasive tactic. If President Trump succeeds in forcing Mexico to stifle the flow of illegal immigrants to the U.S./Mexican border, it will be a big loss for the Democrats. After all, the DNC needs dependents in order to stay relevant. But the lame debate over avocado prices simply shows how desperate the left has become, and how limited their arguments are in their efforts to keep the borders open.

Michigan Insurance Law Changes

My friend Andrea, a lawyer from Grand Rapids Michigan, put this information on Facebook  regarding Michigan’s new insurance regulations signed into law by Governor Gretchen Whitmer on 05/30/2019. It appears that the win will be for the insurance companies while, once again, the voters get a small benefit that could ultimately cost them their lives. (Click here for PDF file Michigan Insurance Changes What You Need to Know )

*Andrea writes;

Here is some information about Michigan’s new no fault law. It is meant to be informational, not political and was put together by a law firm that handles auto accident cases. However, I thought it was a good summary of what is to come.

Michigan’s New No-Fault Plan:
What It Means For You
On May 24, 2019, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the state Legislature reached an agreement to overhaul Michigan’s no-fault auto insurance system. The Governor is expected to sign the legislation (Senate Bill 1).
Here at Christensen Law, our goal is to keep you informed of how changes in the law will affect you. So to put it matter-of-factly, the new no-fault plan is definitely not a “win” for Michigan residents. In fact, it is one of the worst no-fault proposals we have ever seen.
Contrary to how the plan has been pitched to Michigan consumers, it does not guarantee any long-term, significant insurance rate reductions. And, in the end, the plan will adversely affect insurance coverage for all Michigan motorists.
John Cornack, President of the Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault (CPAN), summed it up perfectly in this statement:
“The Michigan Legislature has just passed a destructive piece of legislation that decimates Michigan’s premier auto no-fault system. It is a sell-out of Michigan citizens and a total gift to the insurance industry. … Rather than passing legislation that would more fairly regulate what insurers can charge, Michigan legislators have attempted to solve the problem by taking away people’s rights when they are injured.

… As a result of this legislation, thousands of Michigan families will have no choice but to put their family at risk with the low levels of insurance coverages that this legislation now authorizes.”
After reviewing the plan in detail, the attorneys at Christensen Law believe the Governor should not sign the legislation. Let us explain why … and how the sweeping changes will affect you and your family.
Pick Your Coverage
For more than 40 years, Michigan motorists have been required by law to purchase unlimited personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. This no-fault coverage mandate has ensured that insurance companies will pay for all accident-related injuries during a person’s lifetime, including medical expenses, rehabilitation costs, attendant-care expenses and wage-loss benefits.
Under the new no-fault insurance plan, Michigan drivers will be able to choose from five types of coverage beginning July 1, 2020:
1. Unlimited coverage (same as the current system).
2. Coverage up to $500,000.
3. Coverage up to $250,000.
4. Coverage up to $50,000 (available to those on Medicaid who cannot opt out entirely).
5. Opt out entirely (for those with other insurance/Medicare covering car accident injuries).
In addition, those who do not select unlimited PIP coverage will no longer have to pay an annual fee to the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA), the entity that reimburses insurers for PIP claims in excess of a set amount. Currently, the annual MCCA fee is $192 per vehicle. This fee increases to $220 per vehicle on July 1, 2019. For insurance policies issued after July 1, 2020 with unlimited PIP coverage, the MCCA will still be responsible for paying catastrophic claim benefits. 
What happens if you are injured in a Michigan car accident, have not chosen unlimited PIP coverage but have medical expenses that exceed your coverage limit? If the crash is not your fault, then you must file a lawsuit against the at-fault driver to recover the costs beyond your chosen coverage limit.
Meanwhile, with more motorists likely choosing less comprehensive coverage to reduce their insurance premiums, there is also concern that costs may skyrocket for those who decide to keep their unlimited PIP coverage. 
Temporary Rate Reduction
The new no-fault plan will require that insurance companies lower their rates. Here is the discount schedule:
1. Unlimited PIP coverage – an average 10 percent rate reduction in PIP premium only.
2. Coverage up to $500,000 – an average 20 percent rate reduction in PIP premium only.
3. Coverage up to $250,000 – an average 35 percent rate reduction in PIP premium only.
4. Coverage up to $50,000 – an average 45 percent rate reduction in PIP premium only.
5. Opt out entirely – 100 percent rate reduction in PIP premium only.
Keep in mind, however, that these savings only apply to the PIP portion of your auto insurance premium, which is roughly 35 percent of your total bill. Given this, it is anticipated the new plan will not make a significant financial difference for Detroit drivers who already cannot afford automobile insurance. Reducing a $5,000 – $7,000 premium by a couple hundred dollars is not expected to help those drivers.
The above rate reductions are required to stay in place until July 1, 2028. After that, insurance companies will not have to offer the discounted rates, although they will still have to get their rates approved by the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services (DIFS) before offering them to consumers. The cost savings they realize at drivers’ expense will stay in place permanently.
Another shortcoming of the new plan is that it has a “safety net” for insurance companies. If an insurer finds itself in financial trouble, it can take its case to the DIFS, which may permit the insurance company to change its rates. Another downfall is that the plan does not provide for any transparency when it comes to insurance company profit margins.
Financial Concerns
A Senate Fiscal Agency analysis of the new no-fault plan was completed after the Legislature and the Governor reached their agreement on May 24, 2019. The analysis prepared by the Agency on May 28, 2019 presents several concerns about rising Medicaid costs. 
The analysis states:
“Enactment of the proposed bill would lead to a gradual increase in Medicaid costs that would depend on the availability of and public interest in unlimited PIP coverage. … Some of the costs faced by those in accidents who did not have unlimited coverage would shift to other insurers, including their current primary insurer (whether that is commercial insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid). In many severe injury cases (in which the accident victim became dependent on long-term care) costs would shift to Medicaid as most people do not have long term care coverage beyond the limited coverage provided to Medicare recipients. … Based on the available data and the assumptions outlined below, the Senate Fiscal Agency (SFA) projects costs similar to those projected in the previous analysis of Senate Bill 1: that enactment of the legislation would cause Medicaid costs to increase gradually over a ten-year period by $70.0 million General Fund/General Purpose (GF/GP). In other words, Medicaid costs ten years after enactment would be $70.0 million GF/GP greater, which equates to about a 1.3% increase over a ten-year period, or a 0.13% per year increase in the State share of Medicaid spending. … While Medicare-eligible individuals who completely opted out would be fully covered for hospital, pharmaceutical, and physician services, they would have limited coverage for long-term care (up to 100 days under certain circumstances) and attendant care, so those costs would be shifted to Medicaid for those Medicare recipients who were injured in accidents, required long term or attendant care, and spent down to Medicaid eligibility. Similarly, Medicaid recipients who opted for the $50,000 coverage level and required extensive care after automobile accidents would see their medical costs shifted from automobile insurance and the MCCA to Medicaid. Over time, the largest component of this cost shift would be nursing home and attendant care.”
It is also believed that many Michigan drivers, when presented with PIP coverage options, will avoid choosing unlimited PIP coverage because of the cost. This means there will be an increasing number of auto accident victims without sufficient insurance to pay their medical bills. Unfortunately, this also means that catastrophically injured individuals who chose limited coverage (and not unlimited PIP) will likely be unable to afford the lifetime care they need. In turn, their medical bills will mount, thereby creating dire financial consequences and possibly forcing them into bankruptcy.
Non-Driving Rate Factors 
For many years, auto insurance companies have been inappropriately using non-driving factors to set their rates. These factors include marital status, gender, ZIP code, credit score, occupation, education level and home ownership. Under the new no-fault plan, these non-driving factors can no longer be considered when setting rates. 
At first, this provision may appear to be a great way to roll back the costly insurance premiums that Michigan drivers pay, especially in the Detroit area. Looks, however, can be deceiving. The new plan unfortunately still says that insurance companies can: (1) determine rates by “territory,” which may be an area as small as a census tract (i.e., roughly the size of a neighborhood) and (2) consider credit history or “insurance scores” (which are partly based on credit information) when setting rates.
Medical Provider Fee Schedule
The new no-fault plan implements a fee schedule for medical providers that is based on the Medicare fee schedule. It has been asserted this fee schedule will keep hospitals and other health-care providers from charging excessive prices just because an insurance company is paying the bill
However, much of Michigan’s best in the nation brain injury rehabilitation industry will be forced to reduce charges by over 50%, which will be unsustainable for most programs and lead to their closure. 
Beginning July 1, 2021 (one year after PIP coverage choices go into effect), providers must keep their charges at certain levels, depending on the type of facility. The new fee schedule will be phased-in over a two-year period and will permit providers to charge 200 to 240 percent of the Medicare reimbursement rate. 
The new plan also requires that any savings realized by insurance companies because of the fee schedule must be passed on to consumers in the form of lower rates. In addition, insurers must document the savings in their filings with the DIFS.
Other Important Provisions
In addition to the above changes, the new no-fault plan:
1. Provides that insurance companies do not have to pay for more than 56 hours per week of in-home, family/friend -provided attendant care.
2. Increases the maximum recovery limit of Michigan’s mini-tort law from $1,000 to $3,000.
3. Tolls the “one-year-back rule” in MCL 500.3145. Historically, when a person files a lawsuit to recover unpaid or overdue insurance benefits, payment cannot be recovered “for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced.” Under the new no-fault plan, this limitation will be “tolled from the date the person claiming the benefits makes a specific claim for the benefits until the date the insurer formally denies the claim.” The new plan, however, also provides that tolling “does not apply if the person claiming the benefits fails to pursue the claim with reasonable diligence.”
4. Establishes higher limits for liability insurance, which is purchased in the event you cause an accident and injure someone. Historically, Michigan motorists have been required to carry a minimum of $20,000/$40,000. Under the new plan, the minimum will increase to $50,000/$100,000.
5. Creates an “Anti-Fraud Unit” to investigate criminal and fraudulent activities in the insurance industry.
6. Implements new rules for independent medical examinations (IMEs), which are conducted by doctors hired by insurance companies.
7. Establishes the threshold under which a person can sue for their pain and suffering due to a car accident (i.e., non-economic damages). 
While the many changes that lie ahead under Michigan’s new no-fault plan are all significant, those discussed above are the most important. As you try to make sense of all the changes, do not hesitate to contact Christensen Law with any questions. Our experienced Michigan personal injury attorneys can help you understand the new law and its impact on you and your family.

*Used with her permission

Brace for impact, Michiganders. This one may bite us.

Cheers,

Allen Ray

 

 

Real Stupid Politics and Getting Back to the Basics

Politics –
a: the art or science of government

b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy

c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

– Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Sometimes in life, it is necessary to take a step back and review the basics. In sports, music, shooting, art, relationships, or just about anything else, we tend to become so overwhelmingly mired in the fine details that we forget why we became interested in what we are doing to begin with. We lose our passion. The fun becomes work, and the work becomes mundane. We defend what we think we know based on our experiences and perceptions, which all the while creep further and further from the basics. We get so used to our “normal” that it’s a shock when we hit a wall and find ourselves scratching our heads wondering how we got to the point where we no longer recognize what we are doing.

The same could be said about politics. This last two years has been quite the mess, that is certainly no secret. We have witnessed solid friendships torn apart, strange bedfellows join forces, and factions spin off of factions as solidarity takes a back seat to dissension over the smallest of details.

In all of this, however, one of the most grotesque and senseless political theories has emerged in some circles of the political right; the theory that one must adore a person in power in order to back his or her policies, or that any agreement with an undesirable politician equals unquestioning devotion to said candidate. This philosophy has evolved to the point that the disciples of this strange belief promote voting for their own opposition in order to “cleanse” their political party of “undesirables”, so it can re-emerge as their ideal platform. To send matters even further into the Twilight Zone, the creators of this philosophy are supposedly political intellectuals and elite political analyzers.

I will not mention any names, but I have stood lurking in the shadows watching these supposed scholars cross the line from hating the choice of the 2016 GOP Presidential primary candidate, to actually sympathizing with extreme left propaganda in order to seduce their followers into voting against their own interests in the upcoming Presidential election. I find this entire thinking repulsive and ignorant, especially coming from supposed conservative political elites. I simply cannot fathom how they believe this action is supposed to influence or guide government policy towards conservatism. How is this winning and maintaining control of a government for conservatives?

In all honesty, our current president was not my choice in the primaries, and I found it impossible to vote for any presidential candidate in the 2016 election. However, he is our President. He is precisely who this nation voted for, and he is who we have to work with in order to turn this nation away from the cancer of Democratic Socialism that his predecessor inflicted upon us for eight years. To suggest that we as a nation intentionally put another Democrat in power to “cleanse the Republican party” makes about as much sense as encouraging the Russians to drop nuclear warheads on all of our major military bases in order to stop the United Stated from developing warheads. It is an infantile, playground turf war mentality, and it will only serve to draw this nation closer to the brink of tyranny.

If a group doesn’t like the current POTUS, fine, that is their prerogative. However, if they claim to be conservative in any way, they would be farther ahead by using their political clout to encourage him to enact more conservative policies (like lower taxes, fewer regulations, and stronger border security), and less time opposing him, even at the cost of compromising their conservative values (if they truly do have any).

That, my friends, is the basics of politics; using one’s clout to influence those below and above you to adopt your thinking. President Trump has made errors, and he has also fixed problems that the American public was told could not be repaired. Through it all, however, he seems to be more open to suggestions than any other President I can remember. Why not use that openness to guide him more towards fiscally and Constitutionally conservative principles, instead of trying to burn the entire nation to the ground just to spite an “outsider”?

It’s time to pull it back together as conservatives, and get this nation back to its basic conservative values. This cannot happen if pseudo-conservatives continue to fight any type of progress in order to save their bruised egos.

God Bless America

Allen Ray

Journalism Needs To Learn From the Record Industry

I ranted this morning:

Rant:
Seriously, what is with these sanctimonious journalists acting like they are untouchable and above reproach?
Just like in any other profession, there are good journalists and there are bad journalists.
1/

— Allen Ray 😏☢🚹 (@2CynicAl65) February 12, 2019

(Yes, I cheated and just snap shot a picture….deal with it)

 I copied this so you would have a good understanding of where this post comes from. Journalism is indeed changing, much like the music industry changed at the turn of the century.

 In 2000, a major court case was decided in the famous “Metallica Vs Napster” battle over copyright infringement. Metallica sued Napster for allowing Person to Person (P2P) file sharing of its songs, claiming that Napster denied Metallica of thousands of dollars in royalties from its business practices. Metallica rightfully won the case, but the future path of the music industry was already changed forever. Live streaming and paid downloading sites like Spotify, iHeart, iTunes, and others were replacing CDs as quickly as CDs replaced cassette tapes. The music industry was caught off guard, and many record labels went under as a result. The days of selling an entire album were coming to a close, unless every song on the album was noteworthy. The customer was now able to pick and choose the music THEY wanted, when they wanted to listen, and they did not have to endure the recording industry’s sometime cringe-worthy up-and-coming-artists.

To make matters worse for the industry giants, recording software and digital audio interface devices were coming down in price, allowing anyone with a little computer savvy and a bit of talent to bypass the record labels all together, and get their work in the public’s eye without a contract. The days of big money producers pushing a rising star to the public (We called it Payola) were reduced significantly. The recording industry now had to restructure, re-brand, find new ways to sell their product, or face mass extinction. The smart labels and smart artists did precisely that, and survived.

  I mention all of this in order to make a small point. For the last several years, we have witnessed the exact same phenomenon happening to the news industry. The days of the 6 O’Clock news on local channels and National News on the big networks are fading fast. 24 hour news channels came onto the scene to push aside the local news, and they almost instantly had to compete with news websites for their share of the market. Just like the recording industry, however, the mainstream news industry was always backed by “big money” influence called sponsors. That big money pushed the stories they wanted you to see, and buried the stories they did not want you to see. If your news channel or news site wanted to remain mainstream, it had to appease the sponsors….especially the big, powerful ones. This meant that, as a viewer, you had to spend hours researching in order to find the “story behind the story”…..until recently.

  The introduction of Social Media, and the invention of smart phones have changed the news industry much like cheap recording software and Napster changed the music industry. Think this through with me for a moment; How many times have you seen the rumblings of a story on social media hours, even days, before the press catches hold of it? Likewise, how many times, especially recently, have the subjects of a story instantly come on Twitter and Facebook to correct the media, or defend themselves against a story that was meant as a blatant character assassination? Again, how often has a story been thrust in the public eye, only to have the reporters stammer and stutter in shame the following day after some pimply faced teenager posts a video on YouTube of what really happened?

  The news industry is changing, just as I pointed out in my rant this morning. You are already seeing many journalists being thrown to the side and replaced by trending hashtags and amateur video feed from someone’s phone. The savvy journalists will capitalize on this change and find new ways to market their insight using technology to their advantage. The journalists that stick to the old “institutions” will die off like a triceratops in an ice age. One thing is for sure, big money media bias and the journalists that buy into it are going the way of the giant record labels. Oh, they will still be around, but their significance will be greatly reduced in the future.

Cheers!

Allen Ray

The Socialist Vision for America

Greetings fellow Patriots. A few days ago, in the post Democrats Have A Yuge Problem, I wrote:

“Expect some real bizarre behavior from the Democrats this year. They will be grasping at anything they can to be relevant in the 2020 election…”

Well, it didn’t take them very long at all. The very next day, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) rolled out her vision of the future. A future devoid of airplanes and cow farts, a future where the air was pure, college was free, and the people were paid regardless if they worked or not. A beautiful Socialist utopia where unicorns poop chocolate kisses and rainbows have a Starbucks at either end handing out free double mocha soy lattes!

The initiative’s FAQ on Cortez’s website read like a middle school English project, with proportionately the same number of grammatical errors, and the content was straight out of a 60s acid trip. It was so poorly displayed, that it became the laughing stock of social media, and was taken completely down by mid-evening. However laughable it may be though, the underlying message of the initiative should cause all freedom-loving Americans to nervously give pause.

You see, the fantasy Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) laid out is the exact vision of the future shared by many of our injudicious, propagandized youth, as well as several high ranking Socialists that have infiltrated our institutions. The difference is that AOC has neither the wisdom, the intelligence, or the patience to incrementally initialize the change. But make no mistake, the change she advocates has a fan base.

If given their way, those who share her vision will intentionally set every American back to the 1800s, bringing the same socioeconomic ruin and class warfare to the United States that we are seeing in Greece, France, Venezuela and other Socialist nirvanas. The “Green” tradeoff will be minimal as well, given the inevitable lack of funding for the massive and costly programs. The initiative will leave the United States in shambles with a few elites living in luxury while the rest of us battle for the last broiled rat in the city.

Her cavalier attitude can work to our advantage, though. She has let the proverbial cat out of the bag, and several of her fellow Socialists took very little time playing their hands by jumping on board. Now we see them. Now, we know who they are and we can expose their short-sighted stupidity before it ruins this nation for our children.

We need to act, and we need to act now. It is no longer acceptable to cower before the dimwitted social justice warriors, and the climate worshippers. The labels they try to pin you down with are there because they fear you. You will find the ones that claim to be “intellectually superior” have no real world experience, or any inkling of an idea what the end results of their Socialist agenda will yield five years down the road.

It is no longer acceptable to skip an election, whether local, state, or National. If we cannot purge these people out of our schools and government within the next few elections, we risk losing a Free America for the next generation.

Wake up, America!

Allen Ray

Democrats Have A Yuge Problem!

The Democrats have a big problem today. Last night, America saw a very confident, very positive, well spoken President Trump deliver a State of the Union address that backed them into a corner, and gave them very little to run on in the 2020 election.

To make matters worse, the address had a 76% approval rating according to CNN, which sent key Democrat leaders and Democrat apologist media into “damage control” mode this morning.

It seems Americans are starting to see through all of the negative press, the Russian Collusion stories, and the Orange Man Bad propaganda. It really doesn’t take a lot of investigating to see the economy is booming, and that unemployment is down, way down, for everyone.

This is the Democratic Party’s worst nightmare. Why? Because, history and psychology teach us that leadership changes are unwanted and unlikely during good times. The overwhelming majority of human beings will fight change all the way up to the point where they feel it is necessary for survival, and it is really hard to convince them they are on death’s door when there is absolutely no evidence. Furthermore, the Democrats depend on hard times for their existence. It is almost written into their creed. When times are good and jobs are plenty, you don’t need a big, benevolent socialist government to provide for you. That renders the Democrat’s general platform useless, and sends them scrambling to manufacture crises to motivate their voting base.

So what are they going to run on in 2020?

If you pay attention to the news for the last few weeks, it seems they only have limited arguments to spread out among the multitude of primary candidates that have thrown their hats into mountainous pile. Let’s look at their main ones;

1) Third trimester abortion – disguised as “reproductive justice” (whatever that means), the Democrats have committed themselves to assuring a woman can now destroy her infant up to and even a little after the time of delivery. I don’t think they really wanted that fact to slip out to the general masses, but it did. It is a gruesome platform that is sure to lose the lion’s share of independent voters, as long as conservatives continue to paint this vileness as pure, simple infanticide.

2) Income Inequality- ah yes, the age-old “they have money and I don’t, so instead of working, I’m going to take their money, because….fairness” argument. In all seriousness, this is a stupid and dangerous game they are playing. If you took every penny from every billionaire in the nation, it wouldn’t come close to funding the cost of this nation for over a few months. On top of that, it is a great way for billionaires to thumb their noses at the United States and leave, taking their wealth, businesses, jobs, and futures with them, leaving the nation as bankrupt as the Democrat’s morals.

3) Border Control – Democrats have flipped 180° on this over the last few years. Top Dem leaders are screaching that a barrier is unnecessary, immoral and too costly. This amazes me. The logic makes no sense. It appears the Schumer/Pelosi circus think that guns, drugs, human traffick (slaves), and innocent civilians risking death from exposure pouring through our southern border is great for our nation. Who is paying them to look the other way and leave our southern guard down? Time will tell.

There are a few other minor points, but in all reality, there isn’t much more than that, especially if the economy and foreign affairs keep going in the right direction. Expect some real bizarre behavior from the Democrats this year. They will be grasping at anything they can to be relevant in the 2020 election.

God Bless America!

Allen Ray.

Is It Really A Victory For New York Democrats?

If it weren’t so sad and disgusting, it would almost be funny. The Liberal Democrats, the self-proclaimed party of intellectual superiority, have just stupidly set themselves on an irreversible path towards self-extinction. In 2015 alone, the Democrats killed 638,169 potential future voters inside their mother’s wombs, according to The Washington Post.

That is 6.5 million potential future Democrat voters killed off over ten years by their own savage hands. By comparison, six million Jews died in the Nazi holocaust. Hitler would be so proud. Also by comparison, Hillary Clinton “won” the popular vote by approximately half that much. But the carnage has just begun.

Now, Governor Cuomo (D-NY) opened the door for even more deaths, potentially right up until time of birth, and in some cases, immediately afterwards. If this law is found to be constitutional, it sets the precedence for every blue state to follow suit. That means in another ten years, the Democrat party has the potential to lose thirty percent of their voting base to abortion. Congratulations, Democrats…you really showed us!

Do you find this grotesque analogy disturbing? I sure hope you do. The new law in New York has the potential to murder more innocent children than any tyrant in this planet’s history, and it is all self-inflicted. The Democrats, who pride themselves on being more popular than the conservative base, will be deteriorating to all time lows in the very near future, leaving their own surviving children as the powerless minority party. Maybe they see this. Maybe they have done the math and are now panicking, trying to import future voters. Maybe this is why Nancy Pelosi is dead set against a border wall. They HAVE to know they are on limited time.

But you and I, dear readers, see these children as much more than potential voters. These are human beings. These are the future of our nation. With every infant ripped from a mother’s womb, we may have unwittingly killed the one that cured cancer, or the one that solved world hunger, or poverty, or whatever malady befalls us as people. Yes, one can also say we may have destroyed the next tyrant, or serial killer, but we really do not know, or be able to assist the potential of a child if he or she cannot be born.

By no means do I make light of this subject. These savages have shown their true nature, and it is definitely not an enlightened one. The battle has just begun. We have the future on our side, but it is a Pyrrhic victory at best.

God Bless America, and may God have mercy on our souls.

Allen Ray

Journalism in the New Millennium

Just like any other profession, journalism has a lot of very hard working, inspiring, and honest people in its ranks. Just like every job from law enforcement to fast food joints, many employees make every effort to bring a sense of pride to what they do. There are several journalists (yes, even on CNN) that I follow because of their objectivity and dedication to bringing us a full story based on facts, and allowing us to interpret those facts. I laud and respect these people for dedicating their lives to keeping us informed.

But, just like every occupation from toll booth operators to brain surgeons, there are a few among the crowd that give the rest of their coworkers a bad name. Over the past few years, we have seen some of these journalists trip over themselves because of shoddy reporting that is devoid of fact-checking, and biased reporting that attempts to publicly humiliate someone, or a group of people, that may hold an opinion opposite of that journalist’s beliefs. We have also witnessed journalists that are so egotistical that they seem to make the headline about them more than what they are reporting.

As recent as all of this must seem, however, we must once again realize that none of this is new. Many of us “old people” have witnessed respected journalists appear on television, trying to control watery eyes and wavering voices as they apologize to their audience for failing to report the truth. Then, to our shock, announce that they are stepping down from their occupation in shame.

Ah, but therein lies the difference. In the “good old days” it was the death knell if a journalist was caught reporting a lie, and then trying to cover it up. We as viewers knew our news was pure and unbiased. We demanded more from our press, and we knew we would get it!

Wow, we were such idiots back then! I look back on major events like the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was a government driven, media complicit lie used to drag us into the Vietnam war, and I wonder just how many times throughout the years we have been led astray by those we trusted. When did it all start? Has it always been like this?

Yes, it has.

Since the serpent defiantly reported to Eve that the fruit from the Tree of Life was safe to eat, we have been exposed to biased reporting, blatant lies, and pontificating megalomaniacs.

The invention of the printing press, and later, the radio, the television, and most recently, the personal computer, has made it easier and easier to spread both good and bad information to more and more people. However, it was never easy to discern which news was true and which breaking stories were false or shaded.

Welcome to the new millennium, journalists!

The invention of smart phones, combined with the introduction of social media, however, has given everyone from snot-nosed prepubescents to bird-watching octogenarians the power to fact check the media in real time. Everywhere you look these days, someone is snapping pictures, posting videos, and commenting on breaking news as it is happening.

This poses a very big problem for journalists with dubious intent. They can no longer afford to “edit out” sections of their story that goes against the narrative they are trying to push. Trying to sensationalize a story to promote an agenda can quickly be shot down by a simple Tweet from a 16 year old bystander.

As an industry, it is now up to journalists to realize THEY are the ones being watched. They no longer have the luxury of trying to pass off their opinion as fact. It’s simple, really. Take a cue from the good journalists, and go into your reports realizing the need to stick to indisputable data. When giving an opinion, say so. And most importantly, don’t make yourself the story. You lose a lot of credibility when you do….Jim

God Bless America!

Allen Ray.

When Is An Apology Not Enough?

On January 18, 2019, after media outlet BuzzFeed released a blockbuster report claiming President Donald Trump instructed his attorney, Michael Cohen, to give false testimony to congress, special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s office issued a statement saying the report was “not accurate”. Almost every news source was caught up in the story, and had to retract their statements, stories, and prognostications that surrounded the report. The “AHA!” moment they had so eagerly anticipated disappeared before their eyes, and they were all left scrambling for the next big scoop to pull themselves out of the pit of embarrassment.

They didn’t have to wait long. The very next day, January 19th, a video tape surfaced on social media showing young white boys, donning MAGA hats and surrounding a Native American, who was beating a drum and chanting in the face of one of the smiling (smirking) boys. The other boys danced and some appeared to be mocking the old man. The story spread like a California wildfire. The high courts of the main stream media quickly tried, convicted, and publicly executed the characters of these young boys before many of us had taken our first sip of morning coffee.

Then, more videos surfaced. Videos that clearly and unquestioningly showed the Native American intentionally walking into the crowd of already chanting boys, singling one out, and beating the drum in his face. Eventually, an even longer video surfaced. A video showing the rantings of a hateful “priest” berating and shouting racial slurs at the young boys for an hour before the boys reacted by shouting their school chant. The audio also picked up one of the Native Americans telling them to “go back to Europe”.

Once again, many news sources were sent scrambling for damage control. Some doubled down on their report, stating that MAGA hats were a sign of racism, and the boys were still taunting Nathan Phillips, the Native American. Others issued an almost unnoticeable retraction to the story, others simply stated that the story was “more complex” in light of further video evidence. Almost no media sources apologized for their initial reports, and the ones that did typically had a “yes, but” attached to their statement.

Now, here comes the part this writer struggles with. The First Amendment is very important to the survival of our nation. Freedom of Press allows us to expose, criticize, and bring to light stories that need to be told. We aslo know that stories have different points of view that can paint two completely different pictures from the same scene. But, what happens when the facts are omitted in order to sensationalize a story? What happens when innocent people, especially minors, have their characters destroyed by a dogpile of reporters more eager to be first to push the next big outrage and less eager to check the facts? Is a retraction enough? Is an apology enough?

The Federal Communications Commission licenses and regulates your favorite news channels. Is it time for the F.C.C. to fine television news sources when a heinous attack on a person or group is proven to be incorrect? Should newspapers and certified digital media sources be regulated and fined as well? I hate to think that would be necessary. I loathe the idea of Government regulations on most things, especially control of the airwaves, but have we reached a point where penalties for defamation from F.C.C. regulated news sources are in order? Will lawsuits be enough to keep the press honest? How about the notion that they voluntarily agree to police themselves and help the victims of their heinous errors?

Covington Catholic School was closed today in fear of protests and possible violence, and this fear is a direct result of high profile media sources pushing a story that was proven inaccurate within a few short hours of the initial video. These young men, their siblings, their parents, and their schools will undoubtedly suffer as a result of the media circus that, quite honestly, was wrong twice in two days. They are the ones that need to be better, and we have every right to demand it from them.

God Bless America,

Allen Ray

Stand Your Ground On The Shutdown!

Greetings, Fellow Americans!

I sit here tonight, watching the snow fly and listening to our president map out a compromise that would get the Federal Government running again. I already know the Democrats will not accept anything this man has to offer, no matter what solution he presents. However, I cannot help but wonder if Nancy Pelosi and her ilk have just made a major political error by turning this offer down even before the President took to the airwaves. Her response that the offer was a “non-starter”, even though President Trump offered several deals the Democrats have been demanding since they lost the 2016 election on several levels, was a solid indication that her entire agenda is to stalemate the border issue right back to “business as usual”. That is to say, a lot of talk with neither side doing anything to remedy the situation.

I personally find that behavior suspicious. What does she have to gain by her defiance to any offer put before her? Is she grandstanding to win votes? Does she get kickback from drug cartels and human traffickers by keeping the border open? Is she afraid of losing these modern slaves that cross our border illegally and continually find themselves working unsavory jobs for much less than minimum wage?

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) responded to the President’s offer by saying “There’s only way out: open up the government, Mr. President, and then Democrats and Republicans can have a civil discussion and come up with bipartisan solutions.”

I find his answer stupid and exhausting. Senator Schumer knows very well that the Democrats will not have a civil discussion or a bipartisan solution. The Democrats have proven time and again that they want nothing but their way, and are completely unwilling to compromise. Unfortunately, their way is to keep the outdated laws in place, use Executive Orders to ignore the laws, and continue to allow illegal aliens and drugs to flood through our southern border unchecked and unpunished. To make matters more bizarre, the Democrat leadership is now denying that there even is a crisis at the southern border, and this only months after insisting there was a border crisis when thousands of Honduran immigrants showed up to demand illegal entrance into the United States.

So, what will it take to bring Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer back to the negotiating table so the government can be reopened?

Nothing short of rolling over and giving them their way, and that is the last thing President Trump should do.

You see, the Democrats will never negotiate, because they are used to getting their way from spineless, mealy-mouthed GOP congressmen for the last several decades, even though the GOP still holds two-thirds of the power in Washington D.C. The GOP has reinforced the Democrat’s petulant behavior for way too long, and that became quite obvious by the shock Pelosi-Schumer Inc. displayed when President Trump walked away from the table after they flat out refused a border wall.

If President Trump really wants this wall, he needs to stick to his guns, which means we are in this Government shutdown for the long haul……maybe.

Why maybe?

Well, let’s look at this logically. As conservatives, we pride ourselves on demanding a small government that stays out of our way. We know that there are state, municipal, and township governments that can keep things functioning in our immediate areas. We look outside and see life carrying on as usual. Yes, I am aware that there are those who are not getting paid, along with businesses that hold government contracts that risk losses. I truly hope these people survive this. But the reality of the situation is, the bulk of us feel nothing from the shutdown.

Therein lies the problem for the Democrats. Reliance on a “benevolent government” is the key to their power. If, after a long shutdown, their voter base wakes up and realizes that they do not really need the Federal Government for their daily sustenance, they will also conclude that the bulk of the Democrat doctrine is unnecessary. This would be devastating to a party that has for decades convinced their constituents that they simply cannot exist without them.

President Trump needs to stand his ground. He has support from his voting base, he has now effectively placed the ball in the Democrat’s hands, and the Democrats, not President Trump, have everything to lose from this shutdown.

The next few weeks are going to be interesting.

God Bless America!

Allen Ray.