Dr. Murray Sabrin’s reading list (June 26, 2019)

/

The first Karl Marx Collectivist award goes to…

/

By Dr. Murray Sabrin

After a year hiatus I will be posting at least twice a week. The tenacious push for more collectivism by public officials, pundits and yes, super wealthy Americans, needs to be challenged in every hamlet, town, city and state.  And, of course, we have to challenge the federal government’s 100+ year long march on “the road to serfdom.”

With this in mind, every week I will announce how an elected official or prominent private citizen has embraced one or more of Karl Marx’s Ten Planks to help create a full-blown collectivist society.

According to the laissez-fairerepublic.com website, the United States has adopted many components of Marx’s vision outlined in the Ten Planks, which have become mainstream policies.  You can determine for yourself how America has become a Marxist society by reading the evidence on the website.

1.    Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

2.    A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.    Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4.    Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5.    Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6.    Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

7.    Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8.    Equal obligation of all to work.  Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9.    Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10.Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.(There are additional collectivist planks that Marx did not include in his Manifesto—gun control/confiscation, single- payer healthcare, government retirement benefits, and the war on drugs.)  We thus should amend the 10 Planks to 14.

If you have suggestions for any additional collectivist policies that should be included in Marx’s Manifesto, please email them to me. 

The recipient of the first Karl Marx collectivist award goes to Mayor Bill de Blasio who stated in his State of the City address the other day:

“Here’s the truth, brothers and sisters, there’s plenty of money in the world. Plenty of money in this city. It’s just in the wrong hands!”

 

The Mayor’s statement is the essence of collectivism:  “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”

Based on his public remarks Mayor de Blasio is at least a 70-80% Marxist.  His support for income taxes, rent control, collectivist healthcare, public schools, massive government intervention in the marketplace, especially the workplace, and presumably the Federal Reserve, means de Blasio is a shameless advocate of “trickle-down economics.”

Trickledown economics is the essence of collectivism.  According to this notion, money will flow to the “right hands” if the government—the all-wise collective—has the power to confiscate, redistribute and control our lives to create a Utopia.

Make no mistake this is the battle for the soul of America in the 21st century. 

Lovers of liberty must reject every one of the 10/14 Planks. Supporting any of the 10/14 Planks will only embolden the collectivists who are taking America down the road to serfdom.

Next week the second Karl Marx awardee will be announced.  Guess who?

Is Social Security Going Broke?

/

By Theresa Yarosh,

CGSF Board Member

This is part 2 of a 3 part series.

socialsecurity.png

The Social Security Board of Trustees is reporting through its Annual Report that the trust funds for both the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) was little changed from the previous report in 2017, but that “annual balances are slightly worse in the short term and slightly better in the long term.”

The conclusion is that in 2032 the DI Trust Fund will be completely depleted, which is “four years later than projected in last year's report, and ten years later than projected at the passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015”.

The OASI Trust Fund, on the other hand, will be able to pay full benefits “until 2034”, which is one year earlier than in the 2017 Annual Report, but there are still problems in the future.

The reason for the problems is that the amount that Social Security must pay out annually is larger than what it receives each year.

Social Security receives roughly $800 billion a year in taxes, in 2015 $795 billion (85 percent) of total OASI and DI income came from payroll taxes, while it also generates about another $100 billion from interest earnings on the trust fund to pay current Social Security beneficiaries.

The payout is, unfortunately, much higher as the benefits that the 63 million enrolled beneficiaries received in 2017 totaled close to $965 billion.

At this time, the Social Security Board of Trustees estimates that Social Security has a $13.2 trillion-dollar unfunded liability over the next 75 years. These are the benefits they expect to pay minus the revenue they expect to receive.

Even with this shortfall, there is still a possibility that Social Security will be able to continue as provisions have been created to help minimize what Social Security will have to pay out in the future.

With federal regulations pertaining to retirement, for a person to receive their Social Security benefit they must also accept Medicare when eligible.

Meaning, that when a person is no longer covered by credible health insurance through an employer health plan or a spouse’s employer health plan and they are 65-years old or older, they must accept Medicare or forfeit all of their Social Security benefits.

socialsecurity egg.png

The other added regulation: the bulk of their Medicare premiums, by regulations, are automatically deducted from Social Security benefits.

You may begin to see what has happened and will, unfortunately, happen in the future; Medicare premiums will inflate at a higher rate than what your Social Security benefit will increase at through Social Security’s cost of living adjustment (COLA)

To further complicate matters, in 2003 Congress, through the Medicare Modernization Act, granted the power to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to implement a surcharge on top of the standard Medicare premiums for those retirees who are earning too much income.

Below are the current 2018 Income-Related Monthly Adjusted Amounts (IRMAA) for Part B and Part D of Medicare (Table 1.)

GSF Medicare chart1.png

Thus, those who happen to have not planned accordingly for health coverage costs through Medicare will be subject to not only higher premiums, but they will also realize a much lower Social Security benefit throughout retirement.

Because of these provisions, Social Security is afforded the luxury of not having to pay out the total amount that is due to retirees as their Medicare premiums will work to reduce that benefit.

For those who are not subject to Medicare’s IRMAA, their income is lower throughout retirement; thankfully, there is the Hold Harmless Act.

The Hold Harmless Act of 1984 stipulates that no retiree who is enrolled in Medicare and Social Security can see their Social Security benefits decrease due to Medicare increases.

The result is that those who experience a higher Medicare premium while also seeing their Social Security benefit not increase will be afforded the luxury of having their Medicare premium remain constant while their Social Security benefit will remain the same in that given year as well.

Again, with federal regulations working with both Social Security and Medicare the total amount that is paid out from Social Security will never be as high as previously projected.

Regulations even further the possible viability of Social Security since the Hold Harmless Act was ratified by Congress in 2009 to disqualify those who reach any Medicare IRMAA bracket.

Essentially, only the Standard Premium of $134 per person is going toward the Medicare Trust Fund because the Hold Harmless Act was a subsidy for those at the Standard Premium of Medicare and as such that subsidy is being paid back to the general account via the Medicare IRMAA Surcharges.

Dan McGrath, Co-Founder of Jester Financial Technologies and author of the bestselling retirement planning book “What You Don’t Know About Retirement Will Hurt You” believes “that the main solution to this problem is obvious, and it’s not pretty.”

Mr. McGrath believes that there is not just one solution, but a multiple number of steps that CMS and Social Security can take to ensure that both these programs will remain viable in the future.

For Medicare, Mr. McGrath believes that the first step is to “lower the expenditures paid to healthcare professionals in order to have Medicare being able to control its budget.”

For Social Security, he is under the impression that the federal government will increase the tax on payrolls for those who are still working to generate even more revenue to cover benefits.

The last action Mr. McGrath believes may happen is that the government will take the Medicare IRMAA brackets and adjust them lower so even more retirees will be impacted by it in the future.

social security card.png

Ultimately, with a higher and higher percentage of an individual and couple’s Social Security checks being allocated toward Medicare-related expenditures the ability for Social Security to remain solvent in the future can be achieved.

The issue though is that for many people who will rely on their Social Security benefit to help pay for their expenses in retirement may find themselves having to work longer or changing their lifestyles even more.

As for those in the higher income tiers they may see a day when they are writing checks to the US Treasury to pay for their Medicare.

As their Medicare premiums increase with surcharges from IRMAA and the possibility of their Social Security never increasing and quite possibly decreasing, the bulk of their Social Security benefit will be consumed in its entirety.

The added insult to injury, they will also be taxed on the very same Social Security benefits that they never received.

Is this possible, is Mr. McGrath correct in his assumptions?

Well, according to the Medicare Board of Trustees, in 2026, it may just happen as the proposed Income Related Adjusted Amounts (IRMAA) surcharges are expected to be adjusted due to federal regulations.

With the passing of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 and 2018 not only will the IRMAA brackets change, but they will not be adjusted for inflation until 2028.

At that time the brackets will be adjusted to the CPI-U (Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers) on an annual basis to keep Medicare solvent. (Table 2).

Table 2. Proposed 2026 Income-Related Monthly Adjusted Amounts (IRMAA)

GSF Medicare Chart5.png

These changes are being proposed in conjunction with the expected depletion of the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds as well as containing the future unfunded liabilities.

Dr. Murray Sabrin, Professor of Finance at Ramapo College, states the following situation with regards to the data above “as what I call trickle-down economics, namely well-intentioned but structurally flawed federal programs cannot meet the needs of retirees in a cost-effective manner. Thus, we need to have a national conversation— and action--on how to address the financial tsunami that seniors will be facing for the next couple of decades. In addition, with that said there needs to be a focus on solutions that will properly address these costs not only on the individual level but on the level of National and State pensions.”

Regardless of the unfunded liabilities as it pertains to both Social Security and Medicare, it is important that individuals and couples start planning now for higher healthcare costs in retirement. It is essential to seek out an advisor who is trained in healthcare regulations, the associated inflation rates as it pertains to Medicare and the planning strategies that need to be utilized to restore the purchasing power of retirement assets and Social Security throughout retirement.

Theresa J. Yarosh, CFP®, CLU®, ChFC® is the Founder and President of Macro Wealth Management, LLC. She has been in the financial services industry for over 20 years. She has worked closely with Dan McGrath over the last three years as it pertains to understanding the Impact of Healthcare Costs in Retirement. She is considered to be on the leading edge of financial planning as it pertains to the impact of healthcare costs in retirement. This specialization has given her the focus to identify what financial products in a retirement plan result in higher healthcare costs versus what financial products do not. This allows for a plan that seeks to contain and reduce ongoing healthcare costs to restore the purchasing power of retirement assets.

She is also the Founder and President of Main Street Medigap, LLC. Main Street Medigap, LLC provides Medicare Supplement Insurance policies to seniors ages 65 and over. Also, Main Street Medigap, LLC also consults Attorneys. Banks, CPAs and other Financial Advisors on Medicare and its related cost structure. She can be reached at tyarosh@macrowealthmanagement.com.

Representatives are registered through, and Securities are sold through Nationwide Planning Associates, Inc., Member FINRA/SIPC, located at 115 West Century Road, Suite 360, Paramus, NJ 07652. Investment Advisory Services are offered through NPA Asset Management, LLC. Nationwide Planning Associates, Inc. and Macro Wealth Management, LLC are non-affiliated entities.

Was Lonegan’s defeat an inside job?

/

Well, at least Jay Webber won… and Seth Grossman.

Bob Hugin won’t totally have his way in wrapping the State’s Republican brand in a plain brown paper.  He’s going to have a Reagan conservative and an eccentric libertarian to provide some color to the package – not to mention the incumbents, starting with the staunchly Pro-Life Chris Smith. 

What Hugin won’t have is a genuine Trump-style populist bouncing around in the orchestra, stealing the stage of an election that he plainly believes he is paying for.  Like Grossman, Steve Lonegan is decidedly his own article, but enough in the Trump mold to easily wear the costume.

McCann you say?  The most baldly dishonest campaign in memory will now be set aside, and with it, all the Trumpian rhetoric.  No, John McCann was not endorsed by President Trump, even though his campaign communications led you to believe he was.  More on this later.

It is enough for now to compare the post-truth campaigning style of a certain southern political consultant to the rather insufficient counter-measures of the Lonegan team, whose messaging was done by a consultant shared with the Hugin team.  Although completely false, McCann’s consultant had the discipline to dominate his candidate, confine him to those tasks of which he was capable, and to run the kind of sharp, focused, MESSAGE-driven campaign that we don’t often see here in New Jersey. 

If McCann’s consultant survives the recent raid on his office by the FBI, the inquires by the United States Justice Department and such, he could become a formidable presence on the field in New Jersey.  It takes a certain toughness to come up with a message so at variance with a candidate, to bully the candidate into silence, and then to brazenly run with it to victory.

Unfortunately, now the candidate will think the victory his… he will start to talk again.  Like he did last week when, in an unguarded moment, he let slip his true feelings about abortion (he won’t vote for ANY Pro-Life legislation if elected to Congress) and guns (he opposes the NRA and supports universal background checks).  Did the New Jersey Family Policy Council know this when its (c)4 lobbying arm was induced into doing an openly political mailer that buttered the Pro-Choice candidate but trashed the Pro-Lifer?  Or did they know and did they not care?  More on this later.

Not to worry though.  John McCann has served his purpose.  The candidate with the money lost (and now that candidate is a wounded, angry animal, sitting on a million dollar war chest).  But John McCann is broke.  He has eaten his seed corn.  Don’t look for him to trouble Josh Gottheimer.  And there might even be a reward in it for him.  Another lucrative patronage job perhaps?  He might end up a judge.

So the money that would have been spent in the 5th fighting off the visceral attacks of a Lonegan candidacy will now be heading… where?  Which Democrat will be the beneficiary of yesterday… perhaps they will all share in a piece of it?

Among the other lessons learned…

The party potentates who opened the bottle  of a Tony Ghee candidacy did so before its time.  They gave the newcomer no time to breathe.  It’s a solid vintage that will hopefully be available again.

And speaking of which.  We learn from the former Wally Edge that Peter Murphy is about to assume the throne of the GOP in Passaic County – the place he occupied before a certain United States Attorney, named Chris Christie, sent him away.  It’s a bad business – especially for Bob Hugin, who has made political corruption his ONLY issue.  Lonegan’s polling showed Murphy’s support to be the strongest negative against McCann.  More than 80 percent of Republicans were less likely to vote for a candidate who had his support… that’s REPUBLICANS.  You would have hardly guessed it from Lonegan’s campaign communications, but there you have it.

Surprisingly enough, Lonegan did have coattails of a sort.  In Sussex County, Lonegan-backed challengers to two incumbent Freeholders annihilated the incumbents.  It is the first time in living memory that a ticket with two incumbents was defeated in Sussex County.

Screen Shot 2018-06-06 at 11.14.38 AM.png

Dawn Fantasia is the principal at a charter school.  Josh Hertzberg is an administrator with the ILA union.  These are what Republican candidates look like in our populist era.  Fantasia supported Senator Steve Oroho’s negotiations over the refinancing of the Transportation Trust Fund.  She learned about it and patiently explained the details to others – and ended up cutting a radio spot to that end. People warned that it would hurt her politically, because the final deal raised the gas tax, while cutting or eliminating a host of taxes (including the estate tax) and providing property tax relief.  Another lesson learned?

John McCann injected himself into the Freeholder race, on behalf of the incumbents, who supported him.  He ran a radio spot that attacked Senator Oroho by name on the gas tax.  Former Congressman Scott Garrett came out in support of the incumbents and ran a robo-call on their behalf.  More lessons?

Lonegan won Sussex County, but by a much smaller margin – about 500 votes.  Why the difference?  Well, in Sussex, the Lonegan freeholder ticket had a strong message that they pursued relentlessly – and were quick and sharp with their counterattacks.  The Lonegan campaign itself lacked this, especially the quick counterpunches.  Fantasia and Hertzberg also had the full attentions of Kelly Hart, who had been “let go” by the Lonegan campaign in April.  She had been field director for Sussex County.

Curiously enough though, when the dust settles after the General Election, the only big changes to the line-up of elected officials in CD05 will be the election of Lonegan’s running mates in Sussex County.  Everyone else… McCann and all his running mates in Bergen and Passaic will have lost.

A few years ago, Ralph Nadar wrote a book called “Unstoppable” – in which he predicted the rise of populist movements on both the Left and the Right in response to the disconnect with the mainstream political parties.  He suggested that Left and Right reformers had much in common and therefore, the basis of a genuine “resistance” movement.

How will this translate with Dr. Murray Sabrin on the Libertarian Party ticket for U.S. Senate is anyone’s guess, but there are Libertarian candidates in Districts 5 and 11, and a Constitution party in District 3.  A Center-Left populist, Wendy Goetz, is also running in the 5th.

And finally, election night parties.  The people you meet at such things are not average Republican voters.  Many earn a living from politics – whether as a lobbyist or a vendor, a job holder or a consultant.  They are in the business of politics – even those that just secure from it a certain status, as a member of a local government perhaps, or a school board.

That is not the case with 99 percent of Republican voters.  All they get out of voting is the idea that they are checking the box for someone who thinks like they do.  Most have a general idea of what the Republican Party stands for and that they stand for that too.  That “general idea” is provided to them, largely, by the mainstream media.  And yes, it includes the points that Republicans are Pro-Life and pro-Second Amendment. 

New Jersey’s Republican political class needs to learn to live with this.  Bring to a close their 40 years war with Reagan and their contempt for our base.  Trying to pretend that you are something else or “a different kind of Republican” is not a message, it is a deflection.  For all his money spent on advertising, Bob Hugin was able to convince just 52 percent of Republicans in Sussex County to vote for him.  He will need to do a great deal better.

Let the political class make its money… but leave average GOP voters someone they can vote for.

Sadly, the party took a step back yesterday.  They took away someone who meant something to a great many average Republicans – and they did so by telling voters that McCann was just a newer Lonegan, only more conservative, and that Donald Trump endorsed him.  We all know that isn’t true. 

And on that note, we begin the General Election.

Sabrin for Senate to start ad campaign next week

/

We've noticed a lot of movement in  the camp of Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Murray Sabrin.  The candidate, a professor of finance in the Anisfield School of Business at Ramapo College, indicated yesterday that the campaign's first radio ads should be airing next week. 

The Sabrin campaign is running on a platform that features the following: "100% tax credit for donations to houses of worship and nonprofits; end trickle down welfarism; abolish corporate welfare; end undeclared wars; stop the Fed's manipulation of interest rates; stop domestic spying."

Professor Sabrin recently wrote:  "I have been meeting voters throughout the state collecting signature with volunteers.  The issue that is resonating with voters across the political spectrum, 100% tax credit for donations to nonprofits and houses of worship." 

Dr. Sabrin offered this brief history lesson on the subject, by Dr. Walter E. Williams, the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist:

"Before the massive growth of our welfare state, private charity was the sole option for an individual or family facing insurmountable financial difficulties or other challenges. How do we know that?  There is no history of Americans dying on the streets because they could not find food or basic medical assistance. Respecting the biblical commandment to honor thy father and mother, children took care of their elderly or infirm parents. Family members and the local church also helped those who had fallen on hard times."

Continue reading:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/05/walter-e-williams/before-and-after-welfare-handouts/

The Sabrin campaign recently released this video...

https://www.facebook.com/Sabrin4Senate/videos/vb.244280012410056/1009846632520053/?type=2&theater

Murray Sabrin, Ph.D.

Libertarian Party US Senate nominee

www.SabrinforSenate.com 

Will Robert Hugin meet conservatives half way?

/

It's "the-past-as-future" for the neo-Whitmanites who want to make the New Jersey Republican Party their private, personal playground.  Yep, just like the good-old-days of "pass the cigars" and "let the interns beware."  And that was just what the ladies got up to! 

The current mantra coming from some GOP establishment types in New Jersey is that only a "moderate" can win statewide.  This is, of course, simply an opinion and an opinion that ignores the fact that the only Republican who has won statewide in the last twenty years has been Pro-Life, Pro-Second Amendment, and opposed to Same-Sex Marriage.  

Besides, in these very partisan times, merely having an "R" next to your name -- leave out supporting Donald Trump or Chris Christie -- is enough to preclude any significant support from voters who self-identify as Pro-Choice on Abortion, Pro-Gun Control, and Pro-LGBT.  If these are your first tier issues, what floats your boat, you are not voting Republican.  Period.

Despite this, there is a full court press to mint Republican candidates at all levels who intentionally suppress key parts of the GOP base.  And the trend has got worse, with the suppression of actual conservative candidates by key players in the neo-Whitman, "My-Party-Too" crowd.  Like true greedy crony capitalists, it's not in them to share.  But in elections that increasingly depend on identifying and turning out anyone who will even consider voting Republican, this is a disastrous trend. 

Of course, squishy candidates are real popular with the dregs of the GOP's Whitman-era glitterati --  cocktail-party liberals and crony capitalists who still want to show that they run the NJGOP -- and who are increasingly uncomfortable in the knowledge that they make up just a thimbleful of actual Republican voters.  Unfortunately for them, most voters are not looking to transfer more wealth and power to the one-percent, while infantilizing various "groups" deemed worthy of protection. 

Working class Republican voters and working class Democrat voters are really not that different.  They care about being able to have the means to life.  They want jobs, the opportunity to start a small business; to be free from the worry of foreclosure; an education system that balances costs with results; a safety net that hasn't all been spent before they need it, and a justice system that looks on them a free citizens and that keeps safe the places where they live, work, and shop. 

The  needs of working people are pretty straight forward.  If it were an ice cream shop it would be plain vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry.  Of course, the oligarchs of the Democrat Party can't provide that -- so they advertise a dozen flavors other than vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry -- while the "My-Party-Too" Whitman Republicans have placed out a sign that says, "Closed for business, we've run out of ideas."

Why this is so was the subject of a study conducted by Princeton University.  Take the time to listen to this video.  This is an issue that unites both Left and Right:

Which brings us to Mr. Robert Hugin of the Celgene corporation.  He is the promising candidate for the United States Senate that has the whole GOP establishment buzzing.  They say this erstwhile Marine is the man to beat Bob Menendez.  And a big reason they are so excited about Hugin is his ability to fund his own campaign.

Hugin earns over $20 million a year -- making him one of the best paid bosses in the pharmaceutical industry.  Before joining Celgene, he worked for Wall Street's J.P. Morgan & Company.  Hugin is a longtime member of Chris Christie's fundraising inner-circle, whose allegiance was transferred to Donald Trump after Christie dropped out of the 2016 presidential contest.  Hugin even served as a Trump delegate.  This biography strongly defines the man, making it hard to see how the average Bernie or Hillary voter could ever mark a ballot for him. 

But sure enough, it has emerged that Hugin is conveying to people the idea that he is "a different kind of Republican" and not one of "them" -- as in Pro-Life, et al.

Hey, you donated six figures to Chris Christie and served as a Trump delegate... so do you think you're going to fool a committed Democrat with that Pro-Choice on Abortion line?  You will only drive away thousands upon thousands of voters who want to vote for you, but for whom you will make it so that they can't, in good conscience.

Could Hugin run as the kind of populist who doesn't need cultural conservatives?  Sure, as a Democrat.  Those chocolate and vanilla "kitchen table" issues are grafted onto a cultural worldview that makes you a Trump populist or a Bernie populist.  Neither could have attracted so many voters had they adopted the other's cultural positions. 

In trying to have it all their own way, the "My-Party-Too" crowd might end up destroying the Republican Party in New Jersey.  Ideas matter to most voters and it is ideas that draw people to identify with a political party in the first place.  But in New Jersey, ideas are merely advertising gimmicks for the lobbyists, vendors, and consultants who increasingly run the GOP.  It is something almost unknown to most Republican voters... but too, too easy to demonstrate.  So few don't have Democrat money in their DNA. 

Many GOP leaders make money off Democrats -- or with Democrats.  Lots of money.  While most Republicans just get taxed by Democrats.  That's the great divide.  So where do you stand?  And would you like to know?

Already, conservative libertarian Dr. Murray Sabrin is thinking about another third party run -- like the one in which he almost sunk Christie Whitman.  Perhaps an even stronger candidate will emerge.  Surrendering cultural issues conservative voters to these candidates would not be a good strategy for Mr. Hugin. 

If cultural conservatives, reform conservatives, good-government conservatives, non-insider/crony capitalist conservatives, were to figure out that the fix was in, and that no matter how hard they worked with the GOP establishment they would never get a break, then who knows  -- in these troubled times of Trumpian rebellion and Bernite reaction -- how this could flower?  Would we see its fruit in the low, low turnout 2019 elections?  Would a third-party, seeking that elusive 10 percent, find its way?

Instead of trying to stand-out and apart from the "usual" Republican through the tired and ultimately unconvincing trope of "a different kind of Republican" when it comes to issues like abortion and LGBT rights, Robert Hugin could act boldly to unify Republicans -- the establishment thimbleful and the conservative majority -- by finding a way to meet both half way. 

Yesterday, Senate Democrats blocked an effort to bring the United States into line with most of the nations on earth in preventing abortions after 20 -weeks, the point at which science has shown that an unborn child is sensitive to the pain of being... killed.  Every other country on earth recognizes this fact except North Korea, China, Vietnam, Singapore, Canada, and the Netherlands.  Isn't it time we bring our laws into line with science and the rest of the civilized world?

The Senate's vote was on whether to stop the Democrats’ filibuster of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.  This legislation highlights how unborn children feel intense pain when they are killed in abortions. Fifty-one senators (forty-eight Republicans and three Democrats) voted to take the bill up for debate, but 60 votes were required.  Because Republicans don’t have 60 votes in the chamber to overcome the filibuster, Democrats successfully stopped the bill, which came after President Donald Trump indicated he would sign the bill into law.

Hey, you can still support Roe v. Wade and acknowledge the scientific fact that after 20-weeks, a child should not suffer the kind of death that the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't apply to serial killers, mass-murder terrorists, and rapists who murder children in the commission of a sexual assault.  That, the Court would argue, is "cruel and unusual" for the worse criminals... but for unborn children... are we supposed to look the other way?

So be "Pro-Choice" on abortion.  But support the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act too.  Give conservatives something.

Roger Stone on the Clintons and Trump

/

By Dr. Murray Sabrin

Last night political operative Roger Stone spoke at the Middlesex County Republican Women’s Club and had a book signing afterwards (The Clintons’ War on Women).

In more than 40 minutes of remarks Stone made the following points (the list is not exhaustive):

  • Stone is concerned that the election could be rigged because electronic voting machines can be easily hacked
  • The nomination was stolen from Bernie Sanders because 12 states had electronic voting machines that were probably hacked to give Clinton victories in states she lost
  • Former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was Clinton mole to help rig the primary for Hillary
  • Bill Clinton is a sexual predator with a long history of abuse against women
  • Hillary Clinton has run the cover-up of her husband’s sexual abuses by hiring lawyers to develop dirt on Bill’s accusers
  • Hillary is a congenital liar; Putin has met Hillary Clinton and think she’s a liar
  • The Clinton Foundation is a slush fund for the family and has received multi-million dollar bribes
  • Because Hillary used an unsecured private server while she was Secretary of State, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries probably have Hillary’s emails
  • Trump is an ardent nationalist who by no means is a perfect candidate and wants to have detente with Russia unlike Hillary who is making belligerent statements against Putin
  • Trump is a tough negotiator and should do well in international negotiations with other countries.  He does not want the US to engage in endless wars
  • The 1994 crime bill President Bill Clinton signed, which was responsible for the massive increase in incarceration of black and Hispanic youth because of draconian drug law penalties, will have an impact on minority turnout and support for Hillary

Roger Stone spoke without notes and did not miss a beat. He is an articulate spokesman for Trump’s candidacy and a “take no prisoners” critic of the Clintons. If Trump wins in November, Roger Stone’s expose of the Clintons would have proved invaluable.

Tonight@Ramapo: Social Entrepreneurship Symposium

/

Hosted by Dr. Murray Sabrin, it provides an academic perspective on the ideas being championed in the Legislature by Senators Steve Oroho (R-24) and Jennifer Beck (R-11). 

Social Entrepreneurship: Wave of the Future?

Wednesday, April 6, Trustees Pavilion
Refreshments and Registration: 7:30 p.m.
Panel Discussion: 8 p.m.

On December 19, 1991, The Wall Street Journal published Peter F. Drucker’s essay, “It Profits Us to Strengthen Nonprofits,” where he made several critical statements about America’s welfare state, including…”Government has proved incompetent at solving social problems, virtually every success we have scored has been achieved by nonprofits.”

In the nearly 25 years since Drucker’s essay was published, many of his observations still ring true. “What is needed,” he wrote a quarter century ago, ”is a public policy that establishes the nonprofits as the country’s first line of attack on its social problems.”

Today, America’s welfare state bureaucracies spend trillions of dollars each year ostensibly to improve people’s lives. With tens of millions of Americans receiving food stamps, disability benefits, medical coverage and other social welfare benefits, a comprehensive review of the paradigm that has created these programs, which has caused more dependency upon federal, state and local governments, is in order.

The greatest challenge for the American people is how to demonstrate their humanitarian concerns for their fellow human beings in an effective, less costly manner. Thus, Peter Drucker’s proposal needs to have an airing in these times of fiscal constraints.

To examine the impact of Drucker’s work and the challenges presented for the American people, several experts provide their perspectives in this informative panel discussion.

Howard Husock

Vice President for Research and Publications and Director of the Social Entrepreneurship Initiative at the Manhattan Institute

Author of Philanthropy Under Fire, The Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake: The Failure of American Housing Policy; Repairing the Ladder: Toward a New Housing Policy Paradigm, and contributor to Forbes.com

Amanda Missey

Executive Director of the Bergen Volunteer Medical Initiative

On the Board of Advisors of the Meadowlands Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Bergen County Workforce Development Board

Past-president of the YMCA of Greater Bergen County

Mitch Kahn

Professor Emeritus of Social Work, Ramapo College of New Jersey

Serves on the boards of the Greater Bergen Community Action Program, the Bergen County Housing Coalition, and City Green, Inc.

Author of publications for the Social Service Review, the Journal of Community Practice, the Journal of Progressive Human Services, the Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, and popular media such as The Nation Magazine, and Policy Link

James Ostrowski

Attorney, Buffalo, New York

Author of Government Schools Are Bad for Your Kids: What You Need to Know; Political Class Dismissed: Essays Against Politics; Direct Citizen Action: How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot; and his latest book, Progressivism, A Primer

Sandra Miniutti

Vice President, Marketing & CFO for Charity Navigator

Regularly appears on television, radio and in print, regarding the non-profit sector

With a Rutgers professor, created a non-profit called GlassRoots to provide area youth with opportunities to create glass art and develop entrepreneurial and life skills

Member of the Board of Trustees for GlassRoots (2007-2014)

Member of the development staff of the Morris Museum

This symposium is sponsored by The Anisfield School of Business and moderated by Dr. Murray Sabrin

This event is made possible by a grant from the Charles Koch Foundation. Additional funding for this symposium was provided by the John Templeton Foundation through a grant from the Institute for Humane Studies.