Kerns Opposes Missile Attack On Syria

Kerns Opposes Missile Attack On Syria — Dale Kerns of Ridley, who is running as a Libertarian in the 2018 United States Senate race for the seat held by Democrat Bob Casey, says President Trump did not have congressional authority to fire missiles yesterday (April 6)  at a Syrian government airbase that had been used to launch chemical weapons against civilians.  Kerns is not alone. Others, however, argue that the action is justified by the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed Sept. 14, 2001 which has allowed previous administrations to launch strikes throughout the Mideast. As the U.S already has troops fighting in Syria, it’s hard to see that it’s not.

Here is Kerns statement:

Our campaign is against military intervention as a preemptive strike, and without congressional approval. The United States Constitution gives Congress the power to go to war, not the President.

Since 2014 we have been bombing Islamic State targets without Congressional authorization under President Obama’s executive action. Now President Trump has turned airstrikes toward the Syrian Regime, again without Congressional approval which is unconstitutional. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11 of the Constitution explicitly gives Congress this power not the POTUS. This dictator like behavior should be condemned no matter which party is in power. Congressional approval assures by best possible measures that the Republic is at work, and the branch closest to the people are held accountable for such actions. At this point we are carelessly going into war, without a known plan, without strategic measures, and without an end result. America deserves better. We deserve to carefully weigh all options, consequences, and countermeasures to those results.

Kerns Opposes Missile Attack On Syria
Dale Kerns

 

 

 

Kerns Opposes Missile Attack On Syria

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 4-6-17

Who was Owain Glyndwr? He was the last native Welsh person to hold the title Prince of Wales.

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 4-6-17

New Civil War As Compromise Becomes Impossible

New Civil War As Compromise Becomes Impossible — Joanne Yurchak sent us the below article from Daniel Greenfield’s blog Sultan Knish. It’s worth repeating. The original can be found here.

By Daniel Greenfield

A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.

This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.

Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

That’s why compromise has become impossible.

Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda.

But it couldn’t wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break.

In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within.

The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election.

The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country.

The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves.

It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey.

The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful.

The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.

We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.

That is what we have now.

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next.

The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war.

The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials.

What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war.

There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won’t die in darkness.

Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders.

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.

New Civil War Makes Compromise Impossible

New Civil War As Compromise Becomes Impossible

William Lawrence Sr. Omnibit 4-5-17

What have the great Cherokee thinker Sequoyah, the cynic Ambrose Bierce, Oscar Zeta Acosta a.k.a Dr. Gonzo, and rapper DY in common? They all disappeared in Mexico.

William Lawrence Sr. Omnibit 4-5-17

What have the great Cherokee thinker Sequoyah, the cynic Ambrose Bierce, Oscar Zeta Acosta a.k.a Dr. Gonzo, and rapper DY in common? They all disappeared in Mexico.

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 4-4-17

American police cannot chase a suspect into Canada. And vice-versa.

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 4-4-17

Pension Reform Must Include Funding Reform

Pension Reform Must Include Funding Reform

By Leo Knepper

No matter what pension plan design reforms the legislature enacts for future employees, the Commonwealth will still have a massive unfunded liability. The unfunded liability is the result of over-promising retirement benefits, poor investment performance, optimistic investment return assumptions, but mostly a willful redirection of necessary pension contributions by the Pennsylvania government to other purposes. This gross negligence on the part of elected officials has been bipartisan. It started with the 2001 pension increase signed into law (Act 9) by Governor Ridge and continued through the Rendell years when he signed legislation that purposefully underfunded the pension systems (Act 40 in 2003 and Act 120 in 2010).

Decades of mismanagement have resulted in a combined unfunded liabilities currently estimated at over $75 billion, based on the market value of assets. The longer the unfunded liability persists, the worse it becomes. It’s helpful to look at the unfunded liability as a loan. The annual interest cost on this “loan” is over $5.4B per year. In other words, the unfunded liability grows year after year unless the payment made exceeds interest and the cost of newly earned benefits.  And, just like any other loan we need to be making payments on the principal.

The loan example conveys the basics of the problem. Rep. John McGinnis introduced HB 778 this year to address the unfunded liability. In his co-sponsorship memorandum, McGinnis states:

When Act 120 was passed, the liabilities of PSERS exceeded the market value of its assets by $33.4 billion with a corresponding funding ratio of 57.8 percent. At the close of FY 2016, the PSERS unfunded liability was 50 percent larger at $50.1 billion with a funding ratio of 49.9 percent. Similarly, the liabilities of SERS exceeded the market value of its assets at the end of 2010 by $13.3 billion, with a corresponding funding ratio of 66.1 percent; five years later, the SERS unfunded liability had grown to $20.3 billion, with a funding ratio of 56.2 percent. 

There are likely scenarios where the pension assets will become exhausted in the next 8 to 15 years.  When that happens, benefits paid to retirees may well consume 40 percent  to 50 percent of the general fund.  The consequences for our future only get worse as we delay dealing effectively with this problem. Unless funding reform like HB 778 is included with pension reform, it is unlikely that Pennsylvania will avoid this looming fiscal catastrophe.

Every day the General Assembly does not act, the unfunded liability grows. HB 778 is currently in the House State Government Committee. Please, contact your representative today and urge them to take action.

Mr. Knepper is executive director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

Pension Reform Must Include Funding Reform

Pension Reform Must Include Funding Reform

 

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 4-1-17

Aprile is an Italian surname with roots traceable to the patricians of the Roman republic. It is where the month April gets its name.

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 4-1-17

Finzi, Krommer, Schumann End Chamber Season

Finzi, Krommer, Schumann End Chamber Season

By Joseph B. Dychala

The final Delaware County Symphony chamber concert performance is Sunday, April 2 at 3 p.m. The concert takes place at Neumann University in the Meagher Theater in The Bruder Life Center. Ample free parking is provided.

The program includes selections from Finzi, Krommer and Schumann. Opening the afternoon is three of the Five Bagatelles for Clarinet and Piano by Gerald Finzi followed by Concerto for Two Clarinets in E-flat Major by Franz Krommer. The afternoon concludes with Piano Quintet in E-flat Major by Robert Schumann. Featured performer Arnold Ostroff will be playing the Steinway Concert Grand with Michael Berton on cello.

Tickets may be purchased day of show for $12 each with a special two for one promotion for Delaware and Montgomery County library members upon presenting their library card. Tickets for students and seniors are discounted to $10 each. As always, any child twelve years or under receives free admission with an accompanying paid adult. This is an excellent way to bring the classics to a new generation of listeners.

The final full orchestra concert performance will conclude the 2016 – 2017 concert season on April 30 and feature selections from Shostakovich, Franck, Elgar and Tchaikovsky.

Finzi, Krommer, Schumann End Chamber Season

Anti-Science Rules Academia

Anti-Science Rules Academia — A Penn prof has found that almost all papers published by scientific journals are propaganda.

Only one-tenth of 1 percent of the published works conform to the scientific method says J. Scott Armstrong, a professor of Marketing at the Wharton School. He says the criteria is well established  yet the works claiming to authoritatively reveal truths about nature blithely ignore them.

Why? Follow the money. Getting bucks in academia means telling those who control the grants what they want. Hence, bizarre claims ranging from sexual norms to falling skies are made by highly credentialed people causing policy to be emplaced impoverishing ourselves while enriching the connected.

Armstrong says there is a bright spot though.  Public Library of Science One actually follows scientific principles and has become the largest journal based on papers published.

Anti-Science Rules Academia

Anti-Science Rules Academia

 

 

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 3-31-17

The man-eating bull shark tolerates fresh water. It has been known to swim up the Mississippi as far as Illinois.

William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 3-31-17

The man-eating bull shark tolerates fresh water. It has been known to swim up the Mississippi as far as Illinois.   William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 3-31-17