Domestic Terrorism In Washington

Yesterday morning, Republican lawmakers were targeted in an attack while playing softball just outside of Washington, D.C. According to eye witnesses, the assailant (who will remain nameless…more on that below) asked a congressman who was getting in his car, “Is this the Democrats or the Republicans practice?” 3 minutes later, shots rang out. Several members of Congress as well as staff were hurt or wounded, but as of now, all are expected to fully recover.

This man blatantly targeted Republican members of Congress. Interestingly enough, this man also supported and campaigned for Socialist Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries until Hillary Clinton won the nomination. He later pushed for Senator Sanders to run on the Green Party ticket because he believed that Hillary was a closet Republican. Review of his social media pages showed that he was an extremely adamant supporter of Bernie Sanders and many of his posts could be read by some as hostile on the verge of violent towards President Trump and the GOP.

Now, obviously Bernie Sanders is not directly implicated in this act of domestic terrorism, but he carries partial blame. Bernie’s rhetoric since election night has been of resisting, taking this to the streets and even going as far as saying that President Trump is “perhaps the worst and most dangerous president in the history of our country.” This kind of rhetoric is dangerous to some of the ears that hear it and interpret it with different intentions. The same went for President Trump, when he was running for the office last year. While the meaning of public official’s words might not intend harm, they need to consider their constituency when choosing their words and phrasing.

In the opening paragraph, I mentioned that I would not use the assailant’s name. I believe this is a good policy that would do well in the mainstream media. While I can’t speak to this individual’s motivation, many people who commit acts of mass terror are in it for their 15 minutes of fame. Whether it is to see their name in the news, or to know they will not quickly be forgotten, many know that it will only be a short while before they become a common household name. For some, this is the ultimate goal because they have been ignored most of their life and feel like they have nothing to contribute anymore. Taking away their inevitable notoriety is a first step towards making them think twice before they commit an act of terror.

Finally, while this wasn’t a known terrorist group like ISIS or the Taliban that committed these acts, this is a case of domestic terrorism. This man committed these acts of violence against his own people of his own country and he directed it to an individual group of people.

The decision makers in the Democratic Party need to tone down their rhetoric because they are inciting way too much violence in this country. Day after day, more and more violence is directed towards the right side of the aisle by those on the left. Groups like Antifa, and other hard left groups are promoting resistance at all costs and this is not being condemned by the Democratic Party. If this trend continues, this will become the new face of the DNC and there will not be any more peace in Washington.

Prayers go out to Congressman Scalise and all those who were injured in the awful attack Wednesday morning.

Jason – Three Patriots

 

 

Trump Was Wrong

  1. In the aftermath of the London Bridge terrorist attack late in the evening on June 3rd, President Trump took to twitter. His tweet at 6:17PM read as:

“We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!”

While I agree on the content in the text, I believe the President was wrong.

I think that jumping to conclusions immediately after an attack, of any matter is wrong. I have discussed this with people before when a new story about a mass shooting hits the airwaves, many on the left side of the aisle jump as quick as they can to stand on the graves of the dead, to push their own agenda. Trump took a move right out of the liberal left playbook this weekend when he stood on the graves of those killed in London from a terrorist attack to push his executive order agenda.

If you look at a map with the terrorist attacks since 2001 (through 2014), you will see that virtually every country in Europe has had at least 1 terrorist attack in that 14 year period… all but one country. That one country is Poland.

Why does Poland stand out as not having a single terrorist attack? If you pay much attention to world news, you might know that Poland has a very tough policy on immigration and especially on refugee resettlement. After the Brussels attack at the airport, Poland doubled down on their policy and has refused to admit refugees until they can get a system in place to verify them.

Now, obviously, correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but it’s hard to ignore the common denominator here. Poland hasn’t had a terrorist attack in recent memory and Poland has a very limited immigration policy. Those facts can’t be overlooked easily.

All of the immigration and refugee stuff aside, immediately following a tragic event is never the time to use that event to push your own agenda. It was detestable when President Obama stood on the graves of the children at Sandy Hook after a mentally ill man murdered 26 people, all in the name of pushing for more gun control. It is equally detestable for President Trump to stand on the graves of the 7 dead in London after a terrorist attack and use them to push his travel ban or extreme vetting.

There is a time and a place for this type of discussion, but before the dead are even buried is not the time. Maybe the White House would do well to have a personal “Tweeter” for the President who can say… “How about not doing that or saying that right now!” I know there are plenty of lawyers who would appreciate him being a tad more choosey with his tweets.

 

Jason – Three Patriots

Basic Income: An Adult Participation Trophy

Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, recently joined voices with the likes of Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, and others in calling for a national “Universal Basic Income” (UBI).  The discussion on UBI is not a new one; in fact, one of the country’s founding fathers Thomas Paine (Author of “Common Sense”) promoted a very rudimentary form of basic income in the 1700s.

“Being a plan for meliorating the conditions of man by creating in every nation, a national fund, to pay to every person, when arriving at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, to enable him or her to begin the world! And also, ten pounds sterling per annum during life to every person now living of the age of fifty years, and to all others when they shall arrive at that age, to enable them to live in old age without wretchedness, and go decently out of the world.” – Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice

The idea of a UBI has increased and decreased in popularity over the last 100+ years and has come and gone in many different countries.

First, let’s figure out what a Universal Basic Income is.  While there are many proponents of UBI and many varying ideas on how it can be implement, the premise boils down to a form of social security.  A resident or citizen of a particular country of working age is guaranteed an income for basically just being born.  It is the ultimate of the participation trophy mentality that I have ever heard.

The UBI is given to everyone, regardless of their income, and many proponents suggest setting the UBI at or slightly above the poverty line in order to virtually eliminate poverty in that particular country.  Every single person would receive this minimum income, no matter what their own income might be.  So, Bill Gates and wife Melinda would receive the UBI, just like John Smith, an unemployed professional video game player who lives in his parents’ basement.  Any income that you make on your own is in addition to the UBI you would receive.

Let’s look at some of the pros and cons (as argued by supporters and opponents) to the idea of a UBI:

PRO’s

  • Proponents of a basic income argue that it could eradicate poverty because everyone will receive a wage that is above the poverty line.
  • A UBI would be much easier to administer than the current welfare program. Everyone gets a check – no questions asked.
  • It could allow individuals to invest in themselves for higher education by using the extra money created by UBI to fund higher education degrees.
  • Some suggest that it will fix the “disincentive to work” welfare system currently in place because when individuals add their own income, they will not lose their basic income, like they do in the current system.
  • Some suggest it could reduce crime by reducing the need for theft or looting, thereby reducing the expenditures of police and court costs.

CON’s

  • Inflation, increased costs, and other operational issues could make it unsustainable.
  • There have not been very many options regarding how to pay for a UBI. Some propose using profits from publically owned enterprises – which opens up a whole other can of worms as to how the government would come to own all these enterprises (AKA: Socialism).
  • Much like the previous point, this sets up the mother of all welfare states.
  • It could positively reinforce laziness because individuals would not have a work incentive as a means to provide food and shelter.
  • Funding would require a tax increase, and there is ambiguity as to if the UBI would be taxable. Some studies done in other countries show a need for 45% income tax rate to pay for the basic income. The estimated rate for the US would be around 39%.  Germany found no viable way to fund a basic income.
  • It would lead to a vast increase in immigration as individuals attempt to “cash in” on the free money.

What this all boils down to: a universal basic income is equivalent to a massive scale redistribution of wealth and a little candy coating to Socialism.  Many of the current proponents are Silicon Valley tech CEOs who have a distorted perception of the world in which most people live.  The costs alone for a UBI program in the United States would dwarf Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with many other social programs.

In the current welfare state which expanded greatly under President Obama, we need to invest in ways to encourage Americans who are currently on government assistance out into the job market and help them contribute positively for themselves, for their families, and to society.  The worst thing we could do to them is write them a check without an expiration date.  Participation trophies are taking away our children’s incentive to work hard, train, and win.  Why strive to do your best, when, at the end of the day, everybody gets the same trophy?  UBI is an adult participation trophy… Congratulations, you are breathing today, so here’s a check.

Jason – Three Patriots