penny press 4, 2016

Penny PressNevada, USA Volume 13 Number 22 FEBRUARY 4, 2016

PennyPressLogotype Pointedlymad licensed from: Rich Gast

Credits:Publisher and Editor: Contributing Editors:Fred Weinberg Floyd Brown Al Thomas Doug French Robert Ringer John Getter Pat Choate Ron Knecht Byron Bergeron

The Penny Press is published weekly by Far West Radio LLC All Contents © Penny Press 2016

Letters to the Editor are encouraged. They should be emailed to: [email protected] No unsigned or unverifiable letters will be printed.

775-461-1515 eFax: 201-304-0355

www.pennypressnv.com

THE PENNY PRESS,FEBRUARY 4, 2016 PAGE 2

By FRED WEINBERGPublisher

There he stood at a press conference. Big man. Federal employee. FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing looked into

the camera and said, “Actions have consequences.” As if that justified the killing of LaVoy Finicum at the hands of the Oregon State Police in a confrontation which the FBI orchestrated and could reasonably foresee would end the way it did.

If LaVoy Finicum had been a black teen in a hoodie, the media would be all over it.

Instead, he was a mature white

Arizona rancher who—like many of us in the West—was tired of federal hegemony over our land and was willing to risk his life, his treasure and his sacred honor to do something about it.

You know, like those 56 angry white guys in 1776.

Maybe he was misguided. Maybe he wasn’t.

But, apparently, white rancher lives matter a lot less to the FBI and the Department of Justice than do black lives belonging to looters—or the Al Sharptons of the world.

Agent Bretzing appears to have no idea of the consequences which the actions of his little band of shooters will have.

Causes need martyrs. LaVoy Finicum just became

one. In fact, he may well have become the perfect martyr. He told

NBC on video before it happened that he had a good life and was unafraid to die for his cause.

He also was the father of 11, a foster father over the years to 50 troubled boys…in general not what you think of when you think of an “armed militia member”. Or, for that matter, someone who came to Ferguson, Mo. to riot and loot.

He was just a tough old coot who believed that the Federal Government had vastly overreached in the West and needed to have its pervasive influence reduced. And, unlike Cliven Bundy—who was not a media poster boy for land rights—he had the appeal of someone with the ability to charm the media.

The truth about law enforcement is that much of it sees things in black and white.

If a person is violating a law—any law—than they are subject to the wrath of government sanctioned guns at the complete discretion—or lack of it—of those wielding those guns.

Now, to some extent, law enforcement is important. Within reason, it is one of the few things we all agree that government is and actually should be responsible for.

We expect it to be there when mobsters are stealing us blind in New York and Chicago. We expect it to be there when gang bangers are shooting up the streets of East Los Angeles or the Strip in Las Vegas.

We also expect there to be a proportionate response to, say, a traffic stop. Or an act of civil disobedience. We sort of learned proportionate response in Birmingham, Al. in the 60s

Penny PressNEVADA USA 16 PAGES VOLUME 13 NUMBER 22 FEBRUARY 4, 2016

Penny WisdomAll this bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit…Get over it, get over it. —The Eagles

The Conservative Weekly Voice Of NevadaInside:Trump Could BeThe Next Reagan

See Editorial Page 6

RON KNECHT PAGE 5FRED WEINBERG PAGE 6ROBERT RINGER PAGE 7DICK RESCH PAGE 9ROBERT ROMANO PAGE 10MATT BARBER PAGE 11CHUCK MUTH PAGE 14

Lavoy Finicum: Killed Disobeying Federal "Commands"

Commentary

Continued on page4


from black and white films of Sheriff Bull Connor’s dogs attacking demonstrators.

Unfortunately, many times we get neither—but we do get a lot of rage from some quarters in law enforcement when they are criticized.

I’ll grant you that it is a difficult job, made more so by an “us vs. them” attitude cultivated by much of law enforcement over the years.

Actions do indeed have consequences. So do attitudes.This nation does not—cannot—depend solely on law enforcement

to keep us safe. You cannot put a cop on every corner—or every Federal wildlife preserve. It takes voluntary compliance from a citizenry which has a basic respect for the law.

And, the occasional burst of civil disobedience to help put a bad law

away.That respect for the system has to be earned BY the system.FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing may well have set that

respect back 30 years with his flip recital of what we all know to be true, which was clearly intended to minimize the consequences resulting from a complete mishandling of peaceful civil disobedience.

The idea that a government employee can shoot you dead because you do not follow his “commands” doesn’t sit well with us in the West., where we, also, carry guns.

It’s not like Finicum was knocking over a liquor store in East LA with a gun or selling drugs in Chicago for the Sinaloa cartel.

He was protesting Federal hegemony over Western land.And the sentence for that should probably not be death.

If Finicum Had Been A Black Teen Robbing A Store...Continued from page 3


Do What for Our Children?

Throughout almost all history, life was very different in a key way than it is today. It was worse, in a way that experience over the last 300-plus years in developed economies has made it difficult for folks now living in them to understand.

However, due to negative social, political and economic trends in recent decades, greatly accelerated in the last seven years, we are headed part way back to that grim aspect of the past. Let me explain.

Before about 1700, your lot in life generally was much the same as your parents’ lot. If they were

poor, you’d probably be poor, too. If they were wealthy, likely you too.

We still hear that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but it really isn’t so. Economic mobility has been a key aspect of the difference between the last three centuries and the eons before. Income mobility in advanced economies has waxed and waned over the decades, and declined somewhat in the last quarter century, but it is still much greater than before 1700.

But economic mobility is actually caused by the bigger change that began mainly in England in the late 1600s and spread to Europe and America, and since World War II to other parts of the world. That change is robust economic growth

– a term that makes eyes glaze over but is central to human flourishing and individual fulfillment.

Economists now understand that economic growth is driven by the social, political and economic institutions, practices and policies a society adopts. Above all, the ones that increase economic growth include the rule of law, limited government, protection of private property rights, and the freedom to trade and make contracts that are generally enforced by law.

These advances caused economic growth to rise from levels near zero to much higher levels. They promote growth in wellbeing for most individuals and overall economic growth of society. Also, economic and social mobility. For all these reasons, they lead also to human flourishing and individual wellbeing and fulfillment.

Pre-1700 annual growth of 0.25 percent per person increased incomes by only seven percent in 28 years – a difference so small that it seemed nothing changed in a generation.

But the advances listed above ignited economic growth about ten times that rate – about 2.5 percent per person per year – and led to the Industrial Revolution and the modern world. At that rate, incomes doubled in a generation, changing completely the quality of life and people’s expectations.

Especially so with increased economic mobility.

This experience changed hugely the perceptions and basic beliefs of people and thus the fabric of society from ancient fatalism to modern notions of opportunity, progress and individualism.

However, the continuing and recently accelerated retreat from these principles has over the decades slowed economic growth from 2.5 percent to about 1.0 percent annually. At that rate, the next generation will enjoy income and wealth levels that are only two-thirds of what they would be with 2.5 percent growth. Instead of an annual family income of, say, $90,000, they will have only $60,000.

If we continue the erosion of freedom, opportunity and economic growth due to the ever more statist policies and practices embraced since the 1960s, we consign our children to a much diminished future. So, economic growth – enlarging the pie – is the central public policy goal, and we must nurture policies that promote it and oppose those (especially increasing government taxes, spending and regulation) that reduce it.

Growth and opportunity are the real interest of our children, not increased government spending on failed policies. RON KNECHT


The Penny Press Tips Its Cap To:Wisconsin women’s basketball coach Bobbie Kelsey, frustrated by her team’s performance in a loss to Nebraska decided to use her post-game press conference for some words of advice to players everywhere. “You can’t nap your way to being a great shooter and Facebooking and all these things that teenagers do. You need to put the phones down. Stop facetiming, stop tweeting, and get your butt in the gym. Women’s basketball can you hear me? Get your butt in the gym.” You go girl!

The NFL which finally did something smart. It sent a memo to all 32 teams last week saying that said the league has no rules against moving to any particular market. The memo directed the teams to not assume that a move to Las Vegas would be vetoed by the league. It said the NFL, which needs 24 yes votes by owners to move a franchise, would take Las Vegas as serious as any other prospective home for relocation.

The Penny Press Sends A Bronx Cheer And A Bouquet of Weeds To:Clark County Chief District Judge David Barker who ruled that Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez will retain control over a civil case involving a Sands China executive who was fired in 2010. The ruling by Barker follows a Jan. 13 motion by defendant Las Vegas Sands Corp to disqualify Gonzalez. It was the latest of several attempts to remove Gonzalez from the long-running case. "Defendant presents no evidence Judge Gonzalez has actual bias or implied bias either in favor of or against any party to this action," Barker wrote. Too bad he didn’t rule on her competence.


Tips Of Our Capand

Bronx Cheers

Commentary: Ron Knecht

If any one thing has become obvious in this past week, it is that Donald Trump most certainly can get elected president. He lost to Ted Cruz in Iowa by only a scant number of votes and got seven delegates to Cruz’ 8. While the media is making huge hay, this should be a wake up call to a giant. Let’s see what happens in New Hampshire.

Most certainly, he would do a better job representing the interests of the average guy (and gal) than anybody who has been there since Ronald Reagan.

Now the first thing that some of those establishment “conservatives” will howl is how can I invoke the name Reagan in the same breath with the name Trump?

Apparently, those faux conservatives (National Review, Rich Lowrey, I’m talking about you and your fellow ass clowns) don’t know or can’t read much history.

They like to think of Reagan coming out of his mother’s womb in Tampico, Illinois as the perfect conservative.

It is doubtful that he thought those great thoughts when he was the President of the Screen Actors Guild and a Democrat. Which he was, for a great portion of his life.

So why can that transition happen to Reagan but not Trump?

Frankly, I think that the Republican establishment is much more interested in being important and being paid well for their “wisdom” than actually solving the problems created by eight years of liberals being enabled by establishment Republicans like themselves.

Let’s do this:

Instead of talking about the downside of a Donald Trump presidency, let’s imagine what he might do.

He can’t be bought and he doesn’t need the job.

That means he is immune to the Wall Street lobby which convinced the establishment that they were too big and important to fail. My guess? If Goldman Sachs gets into the same situation they were in back during 2008, they will be in Chapter 11 and deservedly so. I could not imagine any truly independent businessman like Trump bailing out an insurer (AIG) which wrote bad insurance policies which were knowingly bought by investment banks to cover bets against an economy they created.

The Bush and Obama administrations never really understood what happened.

I can guarantee you that Trump did.

A lot of problems in government are created by bad hiring. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry as Secretaries of State come to mind. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. Have I made my point yet? If you are Barack Obama and you hire someone for an important job for whatever the reason and it doesn’t work out, the taxpayers get healthcare.gov. Or, Lois Lerner at the IRS. Or a dead Ambassador to Libya. Or the crazy ayatollahs in Iran with a nuclear weapon.

You don’t get to be worth $10-billion (with a B) by hiring stiffs like the ones I mentioned above. And Trump didn’t.

He understands how to hire top talent. And, as President, he would have his pick of the best.

You probably cannot run government—which is not supposed to make money—exactly like a business. But you can run it by using business-like principals. The way things are now, government doesn’t have any incentive to serve its customers well unless there is someone in charge who is not afraid to say, “You’re fired”. Trump has done that. Both on and off TV.

I’ve always said about Barack Obama that his politics were not the worst part of his administration.

It is his level of incompetence.

Competence is much more important in a leader than a particular political persuasion.

That said, it would be nice to have a leader who is not only competent but understands how the real world works.

Trump has been tested time and again in the real world and has passed those tests with flying colors. With very few exceptions, the rest of the people on the stage seeking the job are professionals at telling you what you want to hear and then doing as they please when they get elected.

The first time they fool us, shame on them. In most cases, that’s already happened.

But we now know what they will do. Why give them another chance to do it to us? At least at a time when we have a better choice?

It’s highly unlikely that Trump could do any worse than the professional politicians and there is a pretty good chance he could be the next Ronald Reagan.

Given the situation our country is in, we need to hire the best guy for the job and that would appear to be Trump.

FRED WEINBERG


OPINIONFrom The Publisher...

Trump Could Easily Be Next Reagan


Psst — conservatives: Screw you!I am but a humble messenger. It’s the millions of Trump supporters who

are robustly delivering the message contained in the title of this article to the conservative elites.

But give credit where credit is due: The elites aren’t giving up. The National Review’s recent cover, “AGAINST TRUMP,” made that crystal clear. But it also made clear their exasperation in trying to keep Republican sheep from escaping their shut-up-and-do-what-you’re-told conservative prison — i.e., conservative as defined by the elites.

No less than twenty-two “prominent conservative leaders” endorsed the National Review’s tacky, juvenile attack on Trump. Most of the names on the list are unknown to the general public, but I feel obliged to comment briefly on just a few that are worth mentioning.

Glenn Beck. No one since the late Harry Browne made such an impact on my thinking as Glenn Beck did in the first year or so of his days at Fox News. I still believe Beck’s meteoric rise to fame is unparalleled in the history of television. I also still believe that he’s the most talented human being ever to appear on a TV screen.

So I take no joy in now seeing him as a pathetic, lost soul desperately trying to find a pathway to get his face back on the tube. He found out the hard way that while the number of people on the Internet dwarfs the number of viewers for even a highly rated television show, the Internet doesn’t have the same impact as TV — not even close.

I’ve been through all this Beck stuff in previous articles, so I won’t go into it in any detail here, except to say once again that I believe he is, like many alcoholics, driven to self-destruction. When he was on top of the world at Fox News, he projected an invincible image. Then, it seemed as though he became bored with his success and started losing his egomaniacal mind.

Beck still claims to be a libertarian (not a conservative, which makes it rather ironic that National Review chose to group him in with twenty-one “true conservatives”), but his words and actions have convinced me that the only ideology he really believes in is Beckism. As a result, what he thinks of Donald Trump is of no interest to millions of his ex-followers, let alone those who have always detested him — particularly (and, again, ironically) Republicans.

Brent Bozell. Bozell has done a lot of good for the cause of freedom, no question about it. But, like his late uncle, William F. Buckley, Jr., he’s a classic example of Republican snobbery, being abrasively dismissive of anyone he suspects of not embracing “conservative” orthodoxy. Like most establishment guys, he’s lived his whole life in such a cloistered little world that, for all his smarts, he doesn’t understand what everyday folks are thinking.

William Kristol. Ditto Bill Kristol, who is one of the most pompous, supercilious Republicans on the planet. Kristol has never met a liberal he didn’t like. His opinions mean nothing to the average voter, particularly anti-establishment voters. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has statuettes of Mitt Romney and Mush McCain on his bedroom dresser.

Cal Thomas. Thomas’s major contribution to the Republican brand of conservativism came in February 2013 when he publicly admonished Dr. Ben Carson, saying that the good doctor should apologize to Barack Obama for telling the truth about his destructive policies at the National Prayer Breakfast. His statement was a real jaw-dropper, and one that I believe helped catapult Carson into national fame and made him beloved by conservatives and libertarians alike.

Dana Loesch and Thomas Sowell. The two people on the National Review list about whom I cannot speak negatively are Dana Loesch and Thomas Sowell. Both are reasonable people and long-time freedom fighters whose opinions I highly respect.

Dana Loesch’s criticisms of Trump are both reasonable and understandable. She gets it — believe me, she gets it. It’s just that she respectfully disagrees with the people who believe Trump is the right choice for conservatives. Fair enough. No mudslinging involved.

As to Thomas Sowell, he is hands-down the greatest libertarian/conservative icon alive, and I agree with him when he says, “No doubt much of the stampede of Republican voters toward Mr. Trump is based on their disgust with the Republican establishment. It is easy to understand why there would be pent-up resentments among Republican voters. But are elections held for the purpose of venting emotions?”

As with Dana Loesch, I have no problem with Sowell’s evenhanded comments. But I would answer his rhetorical question by saying yes, elections are very much about venting emotions — actually, they are the best way to vent emotions.

Also, what Sowell — and Republicans of much lesser intellect than him — don’t get is that self-anointed conservatives hate Trump because he doesn’t pass their ideological purity test for conservativism. And what further gnaws away at them is that Trump doesn’t give a damn — and neither do his supporters.

For crying out loud, the so-called Republican establishment touted ultra-liberal Mush McCain as a conservative. But when given his chance to prove them right, he sheepishly refused to touch issues such as Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Obama’s place of birth, his sealed college records, and the fact that he sported the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

The Republican establishment also believed that weak-kneed Mitt Romney was a staunch conservative, but when it came time to fight for conservative principles, he wet his pants and gave Barack Obama a pass on virtually everything. He wouldn’t even press him on his weakest area, Benghazi, which now, four years later, is an even bigger issue than it was in 2012.

The establishment guys also believe that statists like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Paul (Santa Claus) Ryan, Orrin Hatch, and Jeb Bush are conservatives, not to mention RINO-in-the-making Marco Rubio. With conservatives like these, who needs liberals? They do everything liberals do — and, in many ways, much better.

Where were all these “true conservatives” when the Republican-controlled House refused to defund Obamacare, even though most of its Republican members promised to do so if voters would just pull the lever for them? Or illegal immigration? Or not raising the debt ceiling again? Or the big-bank and GM bailouts? Or defunding Planned Parenthood?

Alert the media: This election is not about think-tank ideology! That’s right, it’s not an ideological purity test. People are angry, and they don’t want to be lectured about the importance of proving one’s conservative credentials — as defined by self-anointed conservative purists.

This election is about fumigating Washington. Think of Trump as an exterminator, not an ideologue. The ideological stuff makes for great debates within the walls of The Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation, but outside those walls the nation is in flames.

The National Review has every right to express its opinions and disseminate them far and wide. No problem with that. But no one should allow the twenty-two people listed on the cover of the National Review — or anyone else, for that matter — to decide for him or her who qualifies as a true conservative and who doesn’t. These guys wouldn’t know pure conservativism if it hit them in the face.

The takeaway message is this: Whether it’s conservatism or any other kind of belief — especially in the area of moral standards — never allow anyone else to decide what your definitions should be. Use your free will, your awareness, and your power of reason to construct your own belief system.

Then, put a “Keep Out” sign on your forebrain and don’t allow yourself to be intimidated into going along with someone else’s idea of right and wrong — especially when it comes to intellectuals and establishment types. ROBERT RINGERRobert Ringer (© 2016)is a New York Times #1 bestselling author who has appeared on numerous national radio and television shows, including The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, ABC Nightline, The Charlie Rose Show, as well as Fox News and Fox Business. To sign up for a free subscription to his mind-expanding daily insights, visit www.robertringer.com.

Commentary: Robert Ringer


Call the number below and save an additional $10 plus get free shipping on your �rst order with Canada Drug Center. Expires June 30, 2014. O�er is valid for prescription orders only and can not be used in conjunction with any other o�ers. Valid for new customers only. One time use per household. Use code 10FREE to receive this special o�er.

Call toll-free: 1-800-950-1603

Compare our prices and see how much you can save! For more prices call us toll-free at 1-800-950-1603.

Save more today with an extra $10 off & free shipping!

Order Now! Toll-free: 1-800-950-1603 $10OFF

Get An Extra

And FREE SHIPPING

Get an extra $10 o� your �rst order today!

Prescription price comparison above is valid as of November 1, 2013. All trade-mark (TM) rights associated with the brand name products in this ad belong to their respective owners. *Generic drugs are carefully regulated medications that have the same active ingredients as the original brand name drug, but are generally cheaper in price. Generic equivalents are equal to their "brand" counterparts in Active Ingredients, Dosage, Safety, Strength, Quality, Performance and Intended use. It may vary in colour, shape, size, cost and appearance.

Please note that we do not carry controlled substances and a valid prescription is required for all prescription medication orders.

Bottle AManufactured By

PfizerTM.Typical US brand price

for 200mg x 100

CelebrexTM

$568.87 Bottle BManufactured By

GenericsManufacturers

Generic equivalent of CelebrexTM

Generic price for 200mg x 100

Celecoxib*$62.00

Their PriceOur Price

Are You Still Paying Too Much For Your Medications?You can save up to 75% when you fill your prescriptions with our Canadian and International prescription service.

NexiumTM $726.32Typical US Brand Price for 40mg x 100

Esomeprazole* $79.00Generic Price for 40mg x 100

VSAdvairTM $849.43Typical US Brand Price for 250-50 mcg x 180 doses

VS

ActonelTM $424.64Typical US Brand Price for 35mg x 12

Risedronate* $43.00Generic Price for 35mg x 12

VSEvistaTM $630.76Typical US Brand Price for 60mg x 100

Raloxifene* $74.00Generic Price for 60mg x 100

VS

Salmeterol & Fluticasone Propionate* $151.00Generic Price for50/250mcg x 180 doses

The Key to Finally Fulfilling that New Year’s Health Resolution

The confetti and champagne bottles have been cleaned up. So now millions of Americans will embark on their New Year’s resolution to — finally! — hit the gym and get healthy.

Most will, unfortunately, fail. Making and then promptly abandoning resolutions to exercise and adopt a healthier lifestyle have become something of a national pastime.

But there’s a way to break the cycle. And it doesn’t require shelling out beaucoup bucks for a personal trainer or foregoing dessert. The solution is as simple as it is effective — resolve to stand more.

Standing for just a couple more hours a day can be as beneficial as training for a marathon. It’s the easiest way to finally fulfill that New Year’s resolution to get fit.

Standing more is such a powerful approach to improving health precisely because it doesn’t require radical lifestyle changes or a herculean willpower.

Most Americans live sedentary lives. Nearly 90 percent are working in jobs that have them sitting all day. Then there’s the time spent commuting in the car, eating, and watching TV. Add that all up, and the average American spends over six hours a day strapped to a seat.

But sitting isn’t a harmless comfort. At these volumes, it’s deadly. Prolonged sitting prompts muscles to downshift their metabolism and burn less fat. That causes blood circulation to slow down and makes it easier for fatty acid to build up in the heart. Cardiovascular disease can be the eventual result.

In fact, a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that

men who sit six or more hours a day are about 50 percent more likely to die from chronic disease, compared with those who sit three hours or fewer.

Even a small commitment to standing can generate massive health benefits. Dr. John Buckley of the University of Chester in the United Kingdom notes that standing for an extra three to four hours a day at work “is the equivalent of running about 10 marathons a year.”

Standing also helps release endorphins, which heightens alertness and energy levels — and therefore makes people more productive.

That consequence should be of interest to employers. Encouraging standing can be a low-cost way to goose worker productivity — and thereby boost the bottom line.

Employers can start by adopting an “Active Design” approach to their workspaces, structuring them so that they’re conducive to regular movement. They can offer workers height-adjustable sit/stand desks instead of traditional seated ones. They can replace company cafeteria tables with high tops. Managers can switch to standing meetings.

Employers can also encourage people to take the stairs. Dr. Karen Lee at New York City’s health department has noted that if the average adult climbed the stairs for just two minutes a day, she’d burn enough calories to prevent weight gain for the whole year.

All these little workplace enhancements add up to much healthier — and happier — employees.

Those who have resolved to improve their health in 2016 needn’t fret about gym memberships or fad diets. They just have to start standing more. A couple more hours a day off the seat can make that yearly resolution a reality. DICK RESCH

Dick Resch is CEO of KI Furniture (www.ki.com).


Commentary: Dick Resch


The economy has not grown above 3 percent for 10 years

It’s official.The U.S. economy has not grown above 3 percent since 2005, making it a full

10 years since that level of growth has been seen. And it has not grown above 4 percent since 2000, marking a 15-year era of much slower growth.

For context, from 1947 to 2004, the economy averaged 3.45 percent growth each year, according to data compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

But from 2006 to 2015, it has averaged just 1.41 percent.That makes this the slowest 10-year period of economic growth since 1930 to

1939, which came in at average annual 1.33 percent growth rate.That is, this is the worst economy — using growth as a metric — since the

Great Depression.But worse, it shows no signs of speeding up. All it may take is another recession

in the near future — say, the next 2 years — and it is highly conceivable that the current economy will produce a number actually worse than the Depression.

No matter how you cut it, it’s been a lost a decade of opportunity, and Americans may be paying the price for years to come.

Still, despite a decade of failure, policy makers have not yet gotten up to speed on the reality of slower economic growth.

A Federal Reserve forecast from Dec. 2014 had projected the Gross Domestic Product to expand between 2.6 and 3.0 percent for 2015. The annual figure came in at 2.4 percent.

This just adds another black mark to the Fed’s atrocious record of making forecasts, where the central bank has been off on almost every one of its projections since 2008.

In Jan. 2008, the Fed neither saw a recession nor a financial crisis on the horizon. At best, it saw a slowdown. It projected between 1.3 to 2.0 percent real growth in 2008, and between 2.1 to 2.7 percent growth in 2009.

Instead, the economy contracted by -0.3 and -2.8 percent in 2008 and 2009, respectively.

By Oct. 2008, as markets were crashing, the bank changed its tune. The

economy was slowing down considerably, but likely would not shrink. 2008 would see between 0.0 to 0.3 percent growth, and 2009 between -0.2 to 1.1 percent. Wrong again.

In Jan. 2009, in the midst of severe financial distress, the Fed finally thought a recession would happen, but would be mild, projecting a contraction between -1.3 to -0.5 percent that year. Still way off. Again, in 2009, it went down -2.8 percent.

Similarly, the Fed’s track record in projecting a recovery has been way off. That year, the Fed projected a V-shaped recovery after 2009. The economy would grow between 2.5 and 3.3 percent in 2010, and between 3.8 and 5.0 percent in 2011.

By Jan. 2010, the Fed had changed its expectations slightly for 2010 — by raising them. Then, they said the economy would grow between 2.8 and 3.5 percent in 2010, although they lowered their expectations for 2011 to between 3.4 and 4.5 percent.

Instead the economy only grew by 2.5 percent in 2010, and by 1.8 percent in 2011. Wrong again.

Even as late as June 2011, the Fed was projecting between 2.7 and 2.9 percent growth for 2011. Way off. Again, the economy only grew by 1.8 percent in 2011.

In Jan. 2012, the Fed said the economy would grow between 2.2 and 2.7 percent — just barely meeting its forecast that time when it came in at 2.2 percent for the year. Like the broken clock, it finally got one right.

In March 2013, the Fed predicted the economy for that year would be 2.3 to 2.8 percent. Wrong again. It only came in at 1.9 percent.

In Dec. 2013, it projected 2.8 to 3.2 percent growth in 2014. Nope. That one came in at 2.4 percent, too.

Remarkable, isn’t it? What a terrible track record. Right once in 8 years. What stock should we put in its Dec. 2016 projection of 2.3 to 2.5 percent growth?

Perhaps more, since this time it’s not such a great number. On the other hand, the economy does average a recession once every 6 to 7 years, and we’re pretty much due for another one.

What is clear is that the nation’s central bank — and the entire world — has been wrong about the U.S. economic growth engine for a decade now. And we need to start asking ourselves why. ROBERT ROMANORobert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.

Commentary: Robert Romano

Pastors: Talk About Politics — Fearlessly!The American church has a problem. It’s one part fear, one part confusion

and one part apathy. Pastors, priests and rabbis have long swallowed the false notion that all things religious and all things political are somehow mutually exclusive – that never the twain shall meet.

Leading up to Ronald Reagan’s landslide presidential victory in 1980, Rev. Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University, captured the crux of the church’s apathy problem. “I’m being accused of being controversial and political,” he said. “I’m not political. But moral issues that become political, I still fight. It isn’t my fault that they’ve made these moral issues political. But because they have doesn’t stop the preachers of the Gospel from addressing them. …”

“What then is wrong?” he continued. “I say the problem, first of all, is in the pulpits of America. We preachers must take the blame. For too long we have fearfully stood back and failed to address the issues that are corrupting the republic. I repeat Proverbs 14:34: ‘Righteousness exalteth a nation.’ Not military might, though that’s important. Not financial resources, though that has been the enjoyment of this nation above all nations in the last 200 years. But spiritual power is the backbone, the strength, of a nation.”

Indeed, it is not just within the church’s purview, but it is the church’s duty to insert itself into state matters relating to morality, public policy and culture at large.

Contrary to popular opinion, the words “separation of church and state” are found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Yet many are misled into believing they are.

So why the confusion?It’s been intentionally fomented. It’s the byproduct of a decades-long religious

cleansing campaign. The First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause,” a mere 10 words, is the primary tool secular separatists misuse and abuse to “fundamentally transform” America to reflect their own anti-Christian self-image.

Yet these words remain abundantly clear in both scope and meaning. The Establishment Clause states merely: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. …”

That’s it.And the founders meant exactly what they said: “Congress,” as in the United

States Congress, “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”In a letter to Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signer of the Declaration of

Independence, Thomas Jefferson, often touted by the left as the great church-state separationist, spelled out exactly what this meant then, and what it means today. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was simply intended to restrict Congress from affirmatively “establishing,” through federal legislation, a national Christian denomination (similar to the Anglican Church of England).

As Jefferson put it: “[T]he clause of the Constitution” covering “freedom of religion” was intended to necessarily preclude “an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States.”

The individual states, however, faced no such restriction. In fact, until as late as 1877, and after religious free exercise became absolute with passage of the 14th Amendment, most states did have an official state form of Christianity. Massachusetts, for example, sanctioned the Congregational Church until 1833.

Even so, today’s anti-Christian ruling class insists on revising history. The ACLU’s own promotional materials, for example, overtly advocate unconstitutional religious discrimination: “The message of the Establishment Clause [to the U.S. Constitution] is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion,” they claim.

This is abject nonsense. It’s unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination – a twisted misrepresentation of the First Amendment. Secular-“progressivism”

depends upon deception as much as it relies upon revisionism. Yes, “separation” applies, but only insofar as it requires the state to remain separate from the church. That is to say, that government may not interfere with the free exercise of either speech or religion.

For decades, hard-left anti-theist groups like the ACLU, People for the American Way (PFAW) and Barry Lynn’s Americans United (AU) have employed a cynical disinformation scheme intended to intimidate clergy into silence on issues of morality, culture and Christian civic involvement – issues that, as Falwell noted, are not political so much as they have been politicized; issues that are inherently “religious.”

AU, for instance, annually sends tens-of-thousands of misleading letters to churches across the nation warning pastors, priests and rabbis that, “If the IRS determines that your house of worship has engaged in unlawful intervention, it can revoke the institution’s tax-exempt status.”

That’s a lie.In reality, there is no legal mechanism whatsoever for the Internal Revenue

Service to take away a church’s tax exemption. Churches are inherently tax-exempt, or, better still, “tax immune,” simply by virtue of being a church. Churches do not need permission from the IRS, nor can the IRS revoke a church’s tax immunity.

Since 1934, when the lobbying restriction was added to the Internal Revenue Code, not a single church has ever lost its tax-exempt status. Since 1954, when the political endorsement/opposition prohibition was added, only one church has ever lost its IRS letter ruling, but even that church did not lose its tax-exempt status. The case involved the Church at Pierce Creek in New York, which placed full-page ads in USA Today and the Washington Times opposing then-Gov. Bill Clinton for president. The ads were sponsored by the church, and donations were solicited. The IRS revoked the church’s letter ruling, but not its tax-exempt status. The church sued, and the court noted that churches are tax-exempt without an IRS letter ruling. It ruled that “because of the unique treatment churches receive under the Internal Revenue Code, the impact of the revocation is likely to be more symbolic than substantial.” Not even this church lost its tax-exempt status, and not one donor was affected by this incident.

As Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel has observed, “Pastors can preach on biblical, moral and social issues, such as natural marriage and abortion, can urge the congregation to register and vote, can overview the positions of the candidates, and may personally endorse candidates. Churches may distribute nonpartisan voter guides, register voters, provide transportation to the polls, hold candidate forums, and introduce visiting candidates.”

Since 2008, the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom has spearheaded a First Amendment exercise called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” Since then, thousands of pastors across America have boldly exercised their guaranteed constitutional rights by addressing “political” issues from the pulpit. This has included directly endorsing candidates. These pastors have dared the IRS to come after them, and, not surprisingly, the IRS has balked.

Pastors, this election season follow the lead of Christ. Speak moral/political truths, in love, fearlessly. Remain undaunted by the threat of government intervention or punitive action by the state. And encourage your congregation to vote for candidates who sincerely reflect, in both word and deed, a biblical worldview and biblical principles.

Be “salt and light.”Because Christ didn’t give us an option to do otherwise.

MATT BARBERMatt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).



Commentary: Matt Barber


The Nation’s LeadingEmergency Food ProviderEmergency Food Provider

CALL NOW AND RECEIVE A FREE SAMPLE800-259-0321

FEATURED ON:

“No matter where you are or howprotected you think you may be,emergencies can strike at any time.You must have a plan. Wise FoodStorage makes it easy to preparefor the unexpected and you cantake action today.”

STOCKING UP KITS ARE EASYTO STORE AND ACCESS

RECIPES INCLUDE:CHEESY LASAGNA

PASTA VEGETABLE ROTINICHILI MACARONI

SAVORY STROGANOFF

MEALS ARE TASTY, SIMPLE,EASY TO PREPARE, AND

HAVE A 25 YEAR SHELF LIFE.

THE WISE SOLUTION

STARTING AT$1/SERVING

99% CUSTOMERSATISFACTION RATE

100% QUALITYGUARANTEED

Top 11 GOP Primaries to Watch in Nevada in 2016

Here are my initial Top 11 legislative races for conservatives to keep an eye on this coming Nevada GOP primary season…

1.) State Senate District 6 (Clark): This will likely be the ugliest legislative race of the season. Freshman Assemblywoman Victoria Seaman vs. freshman Assemblyman Erv Nelson. Seaman voted against the $1.4 billion tax hike. Nelson voted for the $1.4 billion tax hike. Lean Seaman

2.) State Senate District 15 (Washoe): The Republican establishment has anointed former Sandoval chief-of-staff Heidi Gansert for this open seat. Her opponent is conservative businessman Eugene Hoover. Strong Gansert

3.) Assembly District 9 (Clark): Freshman Assemblyman David Gardner is being challenged by Nevada Republican National Committeewoman Diana Orrock. Gardner voted for the $1.4 billion tax hike. Orrock will have the money to make sure voters know it. Lean Orrock

4.) Assembly District 19 (Clark): Freshman Assemblyman Chris Edwards, who voted for the monster tax hike before voting against it, will be facing veteran conservative activist Connie Foust. Toss-up

5.) Assembly District 22: This is an open seat. The conservative outsider is Richard Bunce. The GOP establishment’s anointed candidate is lawyer Keith Pickard. Bunce ran strong in this district two years ago. Lean Bunce

6.) Assembly District 26 (Washoe): Conservative Lisa Krasner will face off against the establishment’s anointed replacement, Jason Guinasso for this open seat. Lean Guinasso

7.) Assembly District 26 (Washoe): There are four Republicans running in a free-for-all for this open seat - two conservatives, Jennifer Terhune & Kimberlie King-Patraw, and two establishmentarians, Sam Kumar and Jill Tolles. Lean Tolles

8.) Assembly District 29 (Clark): This race will be a rematch of the 2014 primary between Assemblyman Stephan Silberkraus and conservative businesswoman Amy Groves. Silberkraus won by just 485 votes in 2014 - but that was before he voted for the largest tax hike in history. Lean Groves

9.) Assembly District 36 (Nye/rurals): Incumbent Assemblyman James Oscarson has infuriated GOP primary voters in this extremely Republican district. But at least three vote-splitting conservative challengers are in the race: Tina Trenner, Scott Mattox and Rusty Stanberry. Lean Oscarson

10.) Assembly District 37 (Clark): Incumbent Assemblyman Glenn Trowbridge was appointed to fill a vacancy for this seat in 2014. He went on to vote for the $1.4 billion tax hike and is being challenged by conservative businessman Jim Marchant. Lean Marchant

11.) State Assembly District 40 (Carson City): Incumbent Assemblyman P.K. O’Neill voted for the largest tax hike in Nevada history. He’s being challenged by former Carson City treasurer Al Kramer and two newbies on the political scene, Chris Forbush and Sam England. Lean O’Neill

Filing opens in March and the landscape could well change as some candidates get cold feet and opt not to run, while some surprise candidates will spring out of the tall grass and file. So stay tuned, Batfans. CHUCK MUTH(Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and publisher of NevadaNewsandViews.com. You can reach him at ChuckMuth.com.)


Commentary: Chuck Muth Every week in Nevada, someone is trying to screw us.

Most of the time, we elected that someone.

That's why we conserva-tives NEED a WEEKLY voice.

That's why the Penny Press has made sticking up for us little guys a whole new Nevada tradition.

Penny Press775-461-1515

eFax [email protected]

pennypressnv.com


SparksReno

Carson Citywww.LaMejorReno.com

penny press 4, 2016

Documents