Should Pro-Lifers Support The Heartbeat Bills?

/in , , , , , , , /by

“Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life.  To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue.  The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life.  And that is nothing but murder.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“A young pregnant wife has been hospitalized for a simple attack of appendicitis.  The doctors had to apply ice to her stomach and when the treatments ended the doctors suggested that she abort the child, they told her it was the best solution because the baby would be born with some disability, but the young brave wife decided not to abort, and the child was born.  That woman was my Mother and I was the child.” (And yes, he is blind, and he has a voice like the angels.)  Andrea Bocelli – Listen to him sing “O Holy Night”

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not guaranteed to unborn human babies in America.  Yet, if you’re pronounced dead when your heart stops beating, why are we not pronounced alive when an unborn baby’s heart is heard beating?  Within 16 to 24 days after conception, the unborn child’s heart can be heard, especially via ultrasound. 

Doctors use several different methods to listen to the fetal heartbeat. At about 3 weeks, when the heart first begins to beat, the sound of the little heart is too soft to hear. A doctor’s stethoscope is not sensitive enough to hear the baby’s heart beating.  Very soon thereafter however, physicians can see the motion using ultrasound technology. 

A special stethoscope called a fetoscope works well when the unborn baby is larger, usually around 15-17 weeks. An active baby however, can make this method of listening a bit challenging. Often when the fetoscope is finally in the right place on the woman’s belly, the unborn baby will change positions and the doctor must move the stethoscope again in search of the heartbeat.

The presence of a fetal heartbeat confirms pregnancy, as long as doctors are certain to distinguish the baby’s heartbeat from the mothers. Usually this is not difficult as the unborn baby has a much faster heart rate than the mother.  

State Heartbeat Bills

In the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court said states can’t abolish abortions before viability — the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the womb which is 24 to 28 weeks gestation; full gestation is 40 weeks. 

But pro-life advocates hope a newly configured U.S. Supreme Court can overturn the decision and are pushing for measures to undercut the ruling in legislatures across the country.  Seven states now allow abortion up to the minute of birth, not just New York.  Heartbeat bills get challenged by the courts, but abortions in the last trimester or minutes before birth do not.

Iowa – A federal court blocked a heartbeat abortion measure in Iowa after it passed into law over the summer.   In mid-February 2019, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said that she will not appeal a ruling that struck down a state law that banned most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.  Her decision not to appeal means the law will never take effect, handing a major victory to supporters of legal abortion.

Reynolds signed the law – which would have been the most restrictive abortion limit in the country – last year. Abortion providers quickly sued and District Court Judge Michael Huppert ruled the law unconstitutional.

Reynolds said in a news release that she doesn’t see a way to successfully appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court, in light of its ruling last year that struck down a 72-hour waiting period for abortions and found a fundamental right to abortion in the Iowa Constitution.

Arkansas – A fetal heartbeat bill, banning abortion after twelve weeks, was passed on January 31, 2013 by the Arkansas Senate, vetoed in Arkansas by Governor Mike Beebe, but, on March 6, 2013, his veto was overridden by the Arkansas House of Representatives.  A federal judge issued a temporary injunction against the Arkansas law in May 2013, and in March 2014, it was struck down by federal judge Susan Webber Wright, who described the law as unconstitutional.

North Dakota – North Dakota HB 1456 was signed into law in March 2013 by former Governor Jack Dalrymple, who stated that it was “a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade. A federal district court found that it clearly violated the constitutional protections afforded in Roe v. Wade and it was quickly blocked.  

In July of that year, a lawsuit had been filed with regard to the law by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) on behalf of the only abortion clinic in North Dakota, Red River Women’s Clinic. In July 2015, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the bill. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the court denied a writ of certiorari in January 2015 and let stand the decision of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

North Dakota spent $491,016 to unsuccessfully defend the laws, and also paid the clinic’s lawyers $245,000 as part of a settlement.  Other states should take notice. Link

Federal courts have already struck down similar “heartbeat bills” including the 20 week bans in Arizona and Idaho.

Kentucky – Already mired in three lawsuits over abortion restrictions, Kentucky lawmakers are ratcheting up the stakes with a new bill to ban most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected.  In January of 2017, Pro-life Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin signed two pro-life bills into law: The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (SB5) and a bill that offers an abortion-minded woman the opportunity to see an ultrasound of her unborn child (HB2).  Link I like both of these bills.  They eat away at the ability of abortion clinics to kill our babies.

SB5, like the laws in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, says you cannot abort a child capable of experiencing pain, a capacity that medical science has demonstrated takes place no later than at 20 weeks.

Tennessee – State Representative Micah Van Huss has rewritten his original heartbeat bill.  It is HB0077.  State Senator Mark Pody introduced SB1236.  Both bills require the person attempting to do the abortion to check for the unborn baby’s heartbeat.  In reading Senator Pody’s bill, it appears as though ultrasound is always done, and it is not.  If our new Governor, Bill Lee, signs onto the heartbeat bill, I am sure, like other states, it will be challenged in court.

Here is a complete list of states who have tried to pass heartbeat bills. 

Abortion Providers

All pro-lifers are praying to save our unborn human babies.  We want the murders stopped, but each of the heartbeat bills are challenged because of the original Roe v. Wade decision regarding viability of life.  The very text of these bills leaves it up to the abortion provider to check for a heartbeat.  Check the summary of Tennessee’s House Bill 0077.  These bills put the requirement of the finding the heartbeat on the person least likely to want to find a heartbeat—the abortion doctors themselves. 

Are we to believe every abortion clinic is going to hire a certified pro-life ultrasound nurse who will honestly do the work required to find a heartbeat…the pressing, searching, roving, seeking with the tools required to find a tiny heartbeat? No. And why would they? 

Ultrasound is completely operator dependent. One can manipulate the scan however they want. And in the hands of an abortion provider, that scan can prove to be deadly. 

Killing unborn babies is a huge cash crop.  Abortion providers know this.  And why would an abortion doctor tell a woman in her third trimester that the heart can be heard when they make far more money on selling baby parts from late term abortions.

Abortion is a very lucrative business, and this has been true from the beginning. By last count, Planned Parenthood (a tax-exempt organization!) has $951 million in total assets!  Marvin Olasky observes and documents in his book, Abortion Rites, that there have long been doctors who supported abortion, “if not for principle, at least for principal.” Link

It’s all about money, that’s the bottom line.  Pro-life lobbyists think up these bills, and then pound their chests in pride, and when it fails, this allows them to ask for more money to fight for this useless law in court, all the while bragging about how many lives that will be saved because laws like this magically make abortion doctors have “good faith.” They know abortion providers will never act in good faith with the heartbeat bills.

Supreme Court and Roe

Courts don’t make laws, although in today’s America, our President is stopped by leftist judges from carrying out his constitutional duties. Prior to Roe v. Wade abortion was illegal in 30 states and legal under certain circumstances in 20 states.  It was a state decision and it should have remained so. 

We have to stop placing our trust in multi-million-dollar lobby groups and instead place our trust in the King of Glory.  Keep working, and keep praying because President Trump may actually have an opportunity to put one or two more pro-life justices on the Supreme Court. 

If that were to happen, and Roe was overturned, the State of Tennessee already has bills in both houses of our legislature that will protect our unborn babies.  The Human Life Protection Act (SB 1257 / HB 1029) avoids constitutional challenges by taking effect upon reversal, in part or in full, of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court. It restores Tennessee’s pre-Roe law and prohibits abortion except to save a mother’s life. Such policies have been enacted in Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Similar legislation is presently being considered in other states such as Kentucky and Arkansas where it passed the state Senate.

Rep. Susan Lynn (Republican, Mt. Juliet, Tennessee) said, “It has always been the priority of Tennessee’s pro-life movement to restore protection to the largest number of unborn children and women in our state. While states like New York are moving to strip any limits to abortion–even at the moments just before birth—Tennessee wants to be known for protecting our children.”

Unfortunately, the heartbeat bill has served to cost states many taxpayer dollars and in some states, those dollars went to the very perpetrators of this evil.  How?  Many of the lawyers for the pro-abortion proponents sit on the boards of Planned Parenthood.

Conclusion

America has embraced a culture of death.  The slaughter of our unborn even at the moment of birth is an atrocity of satanic proportions which needs to be quelled.  Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. Proponents of abortion thrill to dancing in the blood of these babies.  New York Governor Cuomo was overjoyed to pass his infanticide bill promoting abortion at the very moment of birth.  Molech would be proud.

The United States Senate voted on an anti-infanticide bill introduced by Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The legislation needed 60 votes to pass, and it failed by a vote of 53 in favor and 44 against.  The bill stated that “if an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.”  Link  Babies of botched abortions have been left crying for hours to die alone.

A day after Senate Democrats voted to block a bill to stop infanticide, House Democrats blocked a request by Republicans to vote on a similar bill to require medical care and treatment for babies who survive abortions.

This is the 10th time Congressional Democrats thwarted an attempt by Republicans to vote on a bill that would provide medical care and treatment for babies who survived failed abortions — eight times in the House and twice in the Senate.

Every Democratic presidential hopeful — Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren, along with Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont — voted against this common-sense bill. Democrats Doug Jones, Joe Manchin, and Bob Casey Jr. voted in favor of the bill. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) did not vote on the bill.  Where were they?

RELATED ARTICLE: Watch: Warren Visibly Flustered After Audience Member Corners Her On Infanticide Position

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Maria Oswalt on Unsplash.

Epic Excuse-Making Follows Near-Fatal Police Shooting By Criminal Alien

/in , , , , , , /by

When Napa County Sheriff’s Deputy Riley Jarecki initiated a routine traffic stop earlier this month, she probably did not consider that the refusal of California officials to comply with federal immigration authorities had put her in the direct path of a habitual illegal alien criminal with drug and mental health issues.

But that is what happened on Feb. 17 when Jarecki pulled over Javier Hernandez-Morales, who’d been deported three times since 2011 and had arrests for a range of crimes from multiple counts of driving under the influence, battery on a peace officer, illegal possession of a firearm and violating his probation. And there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest, according to Fox News.

After she approached his car window, the Mexican national fired a gun at Jarecki, who shot back, including at least one fatal gunshot.

“It’s unfortunate that our law enforcement partners and the community are subjected to dangerous consequences because of inflexible state laws that protect criminal aliens,” said ICE spokesman Richard Rocha in a statement.

The incident, Rocha said, could have been prevented had ICE been kept in the loop about Hernandez-Morales’ releases from jail. “This is an impactful, scary example of how public safety is affected by laws or policies limiting local law enforcement agencies’ ability to cooperate with ICE,” he said.

When Hernandez immigration status became known, local officials shifted blame and denied wrongdoing by insisting they were following state law.

“We are in compliance with state law. That is the law of the state of California, and the county intends to comply with state law,” Napa County Supervisor Vallea Ramos told a local CBS News affiliate.

The law in question is SB54, a measure signed in 2017 by former Gov. Jerry Brown and that affords protection to all illegal aliens.

The problem for California politicians and local law enforcement who want to absolve themselves of responsibility is that, according to the Los Angeles Times, three detainers for Hernandez-Morales were issued by ICE to Napa County Jail in 2014, 2015 and 2016; and a further detainer to Sonoma County Jail in 2016.

None were honored and all were issued prior to SB54 going into effect.

The controversial law received warranted criticism in December after Newman (Calif.) Police Cpl. Ronil Singh was killed by an illegal alien who had several drunk driving arrests. Like Hernandez, Singh’s murderer should have been deported years ago.

Perhaps the most outrageous displays of blame-shifting is the op-ed penned by Jodi Hernandez, a relative of Jarecki’s attacker.

Published in the Napa Valley Register, the stunning letter implies that Hernandez was merely a victim of an uncaring system that denied him access to mental health care and did not recognize his humanity.

After apologizing to Deputy Jarecki for being forced into a situation where she had to shoot the suspect, Jodi Hernandez launched an assault of her own against enforcing immigration law.

After noting Javier had worked in the vineyards doing work that “kept the engine that is Napa Valley going,” she asserted that America was “rotting from the inside out.”

She went on. Americans, she wrote, “have lost our ability to relate to the rest of humanity from our place of relative affluence in comparison to the rest of the world” and then she argued the nation “cannot ignore the pain and anguish of an individual and expect to have a safe, strong country.”

Javier Hernandez-Morales was a Mexican national. He was in the U.S. illegally. And he was a habitual criminal with an active arrest warrant. The primary responsibility of officials in California is not to tend to his mental health needs of foreign nationals, but the safety and security of their residents and U.S. citizens.

The thinking of open border policymakers and individuals like Jodi Hernandez is not only foolish, but deadly.

COLUMN BY

avatar

JENNIFER G. HICKEY

Jennifer joined FAIR as Web Content Writer in 2017 and brings to the role extensive communications and media background. She began her career as a policy research analyst on multiple national and state political campaigns before entering journalism. In addition to spending over a decade writing for several broadcast and print news outlets, Jennifer directed communications strategy for a member of Congress and a military nonprofit.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Pros And Cons Of TPS For Venezuelans

Congress Fails To Act On “Child Recycling”

Sex and the Temporary Visa Worker

New York Plans Dedicated “Hand-Holders” for Illegal Aliens Seeking Tuition Subsidies

EDITORS NOTE: This FAIR column with images is republished with permission.

Illegal Aliens Arrested in Workplace Raid Sue Over ‘Rights’

/in , , , , , /by

It’s hard for people who obey and respect the law to keep their heads from exploding in the face of affronts to common sense and the rule of law. Our Corruption Chronicles blog explains the latest abuse of our system:

Represented by an extremist nonprofit that lists conservative organizations on a catalogue of “hate groups,” seven illegal immigrants detained in a workplace raid are suing the federal agents that arrested them, claiming that they were racially profiled for being Latino. In a federal court complaint filed this week by their pro bono attorneys at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the illegal aliens assert that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents violated their Constitutional rights against illegal seizures and to equal protection under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The raid occurred last spring at a slaughterhouse and meatpacking plant in a small rural town called Bean Station in east Tennessee. Agents from ICE and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) raided the facility as part of a lengthy investigation into the owner’s multi-million-dollar tax evasion and fraud scheme. About 100 illegal aliens were arrested, most of them from Guatemala and Mexico and some had been previously deported from the U.S. more than once. At least 54 people were deported immediately, some were released and others faced federal or state charges, according to a local news report following the seize.

The owner of the business, James Brantley, eventually pled guilty to multiple federal crimes, including tax fraud, wire fraud, and employment of unauthorized illegal aliens. The feds say he avoided paying nearly $1.3 million in taxes by hiring at least 150 illegal aliens and paying them off the books in cash. The scheme began in 1988 and continued through 2018 when he got busted. Brantley had reported to the IRS that he had only 44 wage-earning employees, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). To avoid Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax obligations, unemployment insurance premiums, unemployment tax and workers’ compensation insurance premiums he paid illegal immigrants in cash at a rate of $8-$10 per hour.

The feds said it was a criminal investigation from day one, not simply an immigration enforcement action as many open borders activists alleged. “Tax fraud is an outrage to hard-working Americans directly harmed when criminals cheat their obligation to society by failing to pay their fair share, and the employment of illegal workers also poses a serious threat to public safety as the use of fraudulent identity documents exposes Americans to potential identity theft and other financial harm,” said the special agent from ICE Homeland Security Investigations who led the probe.

Leftist groups went ballistic, asserting that illegal immigrants were victims whose “rights” were violated by the federal government. Outraged, the SPLC called it the largest workplace immigration raid since the George W. Bush administration. “What happened on April 5, 2018 was law enforcement overreach, plain and simple,” said the group’s senior supervising attorney Meredith Stewart. “We, as a nation, have a shared set of ideals, rooted in the Bill of Rights: We have a right to be free of racial profiling and unlawful arrests. If we are not willing to uphold those ideals for everyone in this country, then we are all at risk of losing our rights.” In the complaint, SPLC attorneys write that the federal officers conspired to plan and execute the forceful and prolonged seizure of the meatpacking plant’s Latino workforce solely on the basis of their actual or apparent race or ethnicity.

The defendants are nine ICE agents who are accused of using “brutal and excessive force without any provocation.” They cursed, shoved and punched workers, according to the SPLC complaint. A Tennessee group that’s helping in the case says the lawsuit addresses the brutality the workers faced at the hands of agents. The nonprofit, Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC), claims the workplace raid was an “unconscionable abuse of power” with “human costs.” The SPLC, an Obama-tied leftist group that helped a gunman commit an act of terrorism against a conservative organization, has the lead in the case. A few years ago a gunman received a 25-year prison sentence for carrying out the politically-motivated shooting of the Family Research Council (FRC) headquarters after admitting that he learned about the FRC from the SPLC “hate map.” Prosecutors called it an act of terrorism and recommended a 45-year sentence. 

Cheap labor explains why there is so much resistance to protecting our border.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Activedia on Pixabay.

Cohen’s Testimony against Trump Was Plainly Unethical

/in , , , , , /by

If you watched the Democrat’s little circus this week in front of the House Oversight Committee, you may have been alternately angered and amused. The Cohen hearing was an echo of the Kavanaugh hearings. It was a blatant misuse of that hallowed room in the Capitol. Here’s what I wrote for Fox News:

Congress and the corrupt Washington Establishment set a new low for abuse of power Wednesday with the testimony of Michael Cohen before the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

As President Trump’s former personal lawyer, Cohen can’t ethically testify to Congress about his interactions with Trump. Cohen knows this. Congress knows this. Special Counsel Robert Mueller knows this.

That the committee hearing took place anyway shows the lawless depth to the partisan Deep State abuse targeting President Trump.

Shameful.

Cohen’s testimony is not credible. He has a demonstrated record of not only lying to Congress, but of violating his ethical duties as a lawyer.

Cohen’s testimony did more than abuse Trump’s rights. Congress benefitted from this abuse and arguably obtained confidential documents belonging to President Trump in violation of its own rules, the president’s rights and the law.

Sure enough, the Democratic-controlled hearing was set up through Clinton, Inc., consigliore Lanny Davis, who is representing Cohen for free.

Judicial Watch uncovered Hillary Clinton emails showing Davis to be her biggest fan.

For example, on October 20, 2010, lawyer Davis wrote Hillary Clinton an email saying: “Thank you H for who you are and what you do,” followed in the exchange by another with “PS. I swear you look younger and better every time I see you, Good night dear Hillary. Lanny.”

So as we witness Cohen – with encouragement from Democrats – trampling over the rights of President Trump, remember this abuse would never have happened without the involvement of Team Clinton.

The Clinton team and Democratic National Committee directly colluded with the Obama Justice Department and FBI to target Donald Trump during the presidential campaign. This led to illicit spying on Trump and his team, an attempted coup by pro-Clinton Deep Staters, and the related appointment of a special counsel to try the further the aim of overthrowing President Trump.

And now the coup effort continues through hearings featuring Cohen this week set up in collusion with Hillary Clinton’s closest associates.

Why would Democrats, who cheered for Cohen to be indicted just a few months ago, now give him a platform to speak to the nation?

The answer is simple: They’re still not over Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 election to Donald Trump.

Michael Cohen is a criminal and Michael Cohen is a political prop. Michael Cohen is the furthest thing from a victim.

At the hearing Wednesday we witnessed history. Unfortunately for the reputation of the House, it is the type of history that will live in infamy. 

We have a federal Freedom of Information Act lawsuit pending for Michael Cohen’s alleged influence peddling and fraud related to his attempts to cash in on his relationship with President Trump. Also, we recently sent an official complaint to the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (IG) calling for investigations into leaks of information about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The complaint asks for an investigation of leaks to BuzzFeed suggesting that President Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.

Neither the abuses of power in an effort to end the Trump presidency, nor Judicial Watch’s relentless legal efforts to expose these abuses to the light of day will end soon.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column with images is republished with permission.

House Democrats Unveil Plan to Bring Total Government Control Over American Health Care

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Liberal House Democrats just unveiled the Medicare for All Act of 2019, a comprehensive bill to abolish virtually all private health plans—including employer-sponsored coverage—and impose total federal government control over Americans’ health care.

Despite its sweeping and detailed government control, as well as the imposition of huge but unknown costs, the 120-page bill has nonetheless initially attracted 106 Democrat co-sponsors, almost half of all Democrats in the House.

The legislation is profoundly authoritarian.

For example, Section 107 ensures that no American, regardless of their personal wants or medical needs, would be able to enroll in any alternative health plan that “duplicates” the government’s coverage. 

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., the bill’s primary sponsor, is at least open about the bill’s intent: “The Medicare for All bill really makes it clear what we mean by ‘Medicare for All.’  We mean a system where there are no private insurance companies that provide these core comprehensive benefits.”

Under Section 201, Congress would decide the content of the health benefits package, what is and is not to be available in the new government health plan. The bill forbids cost sharing, a statutory prohibition guaranteed to induce demand and hike Americans’ overall health costs. 

Americans would not be able simply to spend their own money for medical care from a doctor of their choice. Personal contracts between doctors and patients outside of the government plan would be tightly restricted. Under Section 301, “ … no charge will be made to any individual for any covered items or services than for payment authorized by this Act.”  

Under Section 303, a provider “ … may not bill or enter into any private contract with any individual eligible for benefits under the Act for any item or service that is a benefit under this Act.”  

Even private contracts for “non-covered” medical services require the doctor to report them to the health and human services secretary. Section 303 also stipulates that a private contract between a doctor and a patient for “covered” services would be permissible if and only if the doctor signs and files the affidavit with the secretary of HHS and refrains from submitting any claim for any person “enrolled under this Act” for two full years.

Altogether, these restrictions, layered atop the prohibition on private insurance coverage, would virtually eliminate private agreements between doctors and patients.

In practice, Americans could spend their own money on their own terms with just the very few doctors who could afford to see cash-paying patients entirely outside the system.  

In most respects, the new House bill is broadly similar to Sen. Bernie Sanders’, I-Vt., bill. Beyond creating a government monopoly of health insurance, it centralizes key health care decisions in the office of the secretary of HHS; establishes a national health budget; and it creates a temporary Medicare-style “public option” (along with subsidies for enrollees) in the moribund Obamacare exchanges. 

Like Sanders’ bill, the House bill would also eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the Obamacare exchange plans, and Tricare, the health program for military dependents. All of these beneficiaries would be absorbed into the new government plan; it would not be a matter of personal choice.  

In striking contrast to the earlier version of the House “Medicare for All” bill, the new House bill contains no tax or funding provisions. This is a conspicuous omission. This is especially so because the House sponsors (under Section 204) also incorporate long-term care coverage, including nursing home and community-based care, into the basic benefit package. This coverage would likely be hugely expensive.

Recall that independent analysts from the Mercatus Center and the Urban Institute roughly agree that the true 10-year cost of Sanders’ similar plan would be approximately $32 trillion.

Ken Thorpe of Emory University, formerly an adviser to President Bill Clinton, estimates that the federal taxation needed to finance the Sanders’ plan would amount to an additional 20 percent tax on workers’ income, and more than 7 out of 10 working families would end up paying more for health care than they do today.

The federal spending and taxation needed to fund the new House bill would certainly be larger. Beyond the potential impact of the bill on the nation’s deficits and debt, independent analysts and economists will also focus laser-like on the size and impact of the new federal taxes on individuals and families at various income levels.

Simply taxing “the rich” will not cut it.    

The House co-sponsors of the Medicare for All Act intend a rapid transformation of American health care.

Under Section 106 of the bill, they authorize the completion of this massive disruption of today’s public and private health insurance arrangements within just two years.

In the meantime, analysts at the Congressional Budget Office have a very big job to do.

They need to get on it. Now.

Let the debate begin.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Robert Moffit

Robert Moffit

Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., a seasoned veteran of more than three decades in Washington policymaking, is a senior fellow in domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLE: Pence: Democrats Embrace ‘Infanticide and a Culture of Death’

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Wikimedia Commons.

Facebook Employee: He ran away from me on his bike . . .

/in , , , , , /by
WATCH
James O’Keefe in California. Photo: Screen shot.

Yesterday, Veritas published documents from a brave former Facebook insider which show how conservatives’ pages are targeted and “deboosted.”  These documents also reveal plans to suppress distribution, and they appear to conflate conservative speech with abusive “troll behavior.”

When Facebook commented on our investigations, they didn’t refute our documents, instead, they attacked our insider.  And when they tried to reject our conclusions, they contradicted themselves. 

Facebook told The Verge that their ActionDeboostLiveDistribution tag is used to “deboost” content uploaded through the API as live content that is not actually live content. 

Veritas has learned from people on the inside of Facebook that SIGMA: ActionDeboostLiveDistribution was created for the purpose of ferreting out suicide and self-injury content. 

So which is it?  

How has this tool been used for political purposes?

And when it happens — why aren’t users being notified? 

I figured Veritas should ask the people behind these documents to explain themselves, so I took a trip to California.

When I questioned two of these Facebook employees about their actions, well — take a look for yourself . . . 

They were so shocked that a journalist is trying to hold a tech giant accountable that one of them said:

 “I’m a little worried for my safety given the way that you’re stalking me.”

The irony!

What about how our brave insider feels? 

She has been attacked and ridiculed by one of the most powerful companies in the world.  Facebook, which has billions of daily users — now has her in their crosshairs.

At any rate, after asking more questions of him, the Facebook employee got so upset he got on his bike and quickly peddled away!

Click HERE to watch. 

In Truth, 

James O’Keefe

EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas column with video and images is republished with permission. The featured image is by geralt from Pixabay.

Seattle Decapitation Murder Involved ‘New Americans’?

/in , , , , , /by
This must be an example of the *diversity and cultural enrichment* that we’ve been promised by the Democrats….

(Grim, a commenter at the Hal Turner Radio Show)

Reader Kris sent me this story and remarked that there was very little to be found in the news on the early-February murder and the police officer-involved shooting that finished off the murderer, and she is right.

If you go to Hal Turner Radio Show to view the police cam video, don’t open it if you are squeamish.

Kris is right.  Although some of the story is available at the Seattle Times, I had to go to the UK Daily Mail for what really happened.  Why didn’t this story make national news?

Police release footage of the moment an agitated knife-wielding suspect is shot dead by cops after ‘murdering his girlfriend by beheading her’ in a Seattle apartment

A knife-wielding suspect thought to have killed his girlfriend by ‘beheading’ her was shot dead by police when officers stormed the apartment.

Officers were called to a suspected domestic violence incident in Seattle and had to force the door open on February 7 at around 3.30am.

Seattle murderer and victim
Victim Vaquedano and alleged killer Rodriquez.  No mention of their immigration status.

Police found the suspect, named by police as Danny Rodriguez, 34, brandishing a knife and appearing agitated.

Officers soon noticed the weapon and shouted, ‘oh s***, get out’ with the second cop saying, ‘he’s got a knife’, as they peered through the crack of the door and saw the suspect inside the apartment.

Both officers told the man to ‘stay right there, don’t move, we will shoot you’ and ordered him to, ‘stop, don’t touch the knife’, before telling him to ‘look away’ and to ‘get down on the ground’.

They then saw a woman’s body lying on the floor, with one of the two cops saying ‘s***, she’s had her head cut off’.

The victim was later identified as 48-year-old Irma Rodriguez Vaquedano.

[….]

The Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) told the Seattle Times in a statement: ‘The suspect acted aggressively and gave the officers no choice but to fire their weapons to stop this threat.’

[….]

…. family members of Vaquedano, who is thought to be from Honduras, told Colombian newspaper El Heraldo, that the pair had been a couple for several years.

More here.

I guess it is going to be up to you to make sure this ‘diversity is beautiful’ news gets out more widely!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by HannahJoe7 on Pixabay.

Trayvon Martin Hate Hoax Created Modern Identity Politics

/in , , , , /by

The final take-away from what follows is that America is a pretty frickin’ amazing country when it comes to racism and bigotry.

It’s so good, in fact, that a small but booming industry has sprung up creating hoaxes to perpetuate the illusion of a bigoted country when the fact that there are so many hoaxes is one of the strong proofs of how little there is in reality.

The Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax — he paid Nigerians to pretend to attack him, pour bleach on him and put a noose around his neck — is just the latest. It follows in a long line of hate crime hoaxes being perpetrated by the left, Democrats and the media, but I repeat myself, creating an industry that was super fueled by the Trayvon Martin race hoax.

But Trayvon was only the start. Fuel was added in Ferguson, Baltimore and elsewhere. And all of the straight up hoaxes or race-baiting misrepresentations and grew into wildfires with the belching bellows of a credulous, fellow-traveling media.

This running annual survey by Gallup Poll on race relations shows the damage done by a series of hate crime hoaxes starting in 2013.

What happened in 2013? It’s what happened in 2012 that led to 2013. George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, after Martin attacked him and knocked him to the ground. It was self defense. That was the initial State’s Attorney decision after interviews with witnesses and examining all of the physical evidence. No charges.

But 2012, you may recall, was an election year. Barack Obama was in the midst of his re-election campaign and had already shown himself more than willing to stoke racial tensions — both purposely and incidentally — for his own purposes. The national media, and we all understand they are aligned with Democratic politicians and were major allies of Obama, ginned up the story of outrage that a white man had killed a young black teen in cold blood and was walking away scot free. Pictures of Trayvon in the media were from when he was 13 and pretty young and innocent looking.

The problem was that Trayvon was 18 and a filled out man. His social media accounts showed a full-size young man brooding in a hoodie or giving us all the finger — pictures the media refused to run, sticking with the five-year-old photo of a skinny kid. The other problem: Zimmerman was not white. He was Hispanic.

The photo the media ran most often:

Photos of the young man who actually attacked Zimmerman:

No matter. The narrative was set. This is not to say it was OK to shoot him because of the photos. His actions apparently dictated that.

It is to say that the media was particularly egregious on this hoax, actively participating in it. Beyond just absurd credulity and using the wrong photo, CNN and NBC News were both caught manipulating Zimmerman’s 911 tape to twist him into a racist by badly taking things out of context and warping some of the words. ABC News actually airbrushed a photo of Zimmerman’s bloodied scalp to remove the wounds he received from Martin.

The narrative whipping up the public, prosecutors ended up charging Zimmerman with murder — a wild overreach that was doomed from the beginning. It went to trial and Zimmerman was duly acquitted after a full-fledged circus because while the race-inflaming industry had changed the narrative and the charges, the evidence itself had not changed.

But the damage was done. Florida was branded again as racist. America was racist. Black men were being gunned down on the streets. And the racial tensions that had been finally healing were cut back open again because it benefitted Obama and the Democratic, race-hustling machine let by Al Sharpton and the NAACP.

Gallup’s poll showed a plunge in American attitudes on race relations the following year when it was taken. All based on a hate crime hoax.

It got worse. In 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a black community, part of the St. Louis metro area, a black teen named Michael Brown was shot by a white cop and killed, his body laying in the street until paramedics arrived. The race-baiting industry, led by the media megaphone portion, went into high gear, including reporting that Brown had put his hands up and said don’t shoot. “Hands up don’t shoot” became the mantra of activists and many in the media. Riots ensued. The police officer went into hiding and Black Lives Matter was birthed.

But this too was a hate crime hoax. It turns out, when the investigation was done and all the evidence in, even Obama’s race-driven Justice Department found no cause against the police officer because “hands up don’t shoot” never happened. What actually took place was that Brown, always called a teen despite being a nearly 300-pound 19-year-old man, had just robbed a Korean grocery store and threatened the owner. It’s on tape.

When the officer responding to the call saw him walking down the street, he told him to stop. Brown ultimately ended up attacking the officer, punched him in the face and tried to take his gun. The officer shot Brown multiple times and killed him. There’s no disputing this as even Obama’s team had to admit this is what happened.

But the burning, looting and rioting that resulted from the irresponsible (at best) media hoax reporting had done more damage to American race relations. In 2014 and 2015, Gallup’s poll fell further. It leveled out at a much worse place by 2016 and has actually stayed steady at that point through 2018. So six years ago, the number of blacks who thought race relations between blacks and white was bad nearly doubled, from 29 percent in 2012 to 53 percent by 2015. It actually dropped a little by 2018 to 47 percent, but still very high. Whites track that trajectory.   

Hoax hate crimes are nothing really new. They’ve been used to further the left’s agenda for decades. In 1987, Al Sharpton created the Tawana Brawley hoax, which claimed that four white men raped a black girl. It never happened, it finally came out. But riots and at least one actual death stemmed from the hoax.

Sharpton has been well-rewarded for lying and creating hysteria over the hoax. He got national recognition and displaced Jesse Jackson as the ultimate race hustler. He made millions of dollars, was given a television show, a talk radio show and even ran for president in 2004. Oh, and he was invited to Obama’s White House 82 times — to advise on matters of race. Frankly, it appears Obama took his advice.

The Daily Caller has compiled a list of 21 of the most egregious hate crime hoaxes just during the Trump administration. (Other sites have the total, including small ones, at nearly 400.) There are many more, but these are a few that stand out. They range from racist hate crime hoaxes to anti-gay hate crime hoaxes to anti-Muslim hate crime hoaxes. Basically, the full panoply of the left.

Note, that these all disappeared from the news immediately upon being determined by authorities to be hoaxes. But the media continues to jump on the next one. Remember way back to the Covington school boys hate crime hoax, before the Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax?

Of course, unless you file a false police report, and the police decide to actually charge you with that — there is no downside to hoaxing and a lot of upside potential. The cost-benefit analysis for the hoaxer is very positive.

There will be more, and the media will leap to believe them. And American race relations and divisions will either remain bad or get deeper.

Wait, here’s one new hot off the presses. Two days ago, The Detroit Free Press reported that a transgender, gay-rights activist who had fought for a local anti-discrimination ordinance in Jackson, Michigan, and had his house burned down in 2017, blamed haters, was just charged with arson for setting the fire himself. It’s like clockwork.

Notice that the hate crime hoaxes are not just regarding blacks, although they are an important part of intersectional politics of the left. It is also gays, Muslims and so on. This has helped fuel intersectional politics, continuing the broad hoax that America is a racist, bigoted place.

The really ironic part is that progressive Democrats have to continually keep making up these hoaxes, because there is so little racism and bigotry left in the United States. Yet the perceptions are wildly different. We know why, and we know who benefits.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by
jorgophotography on Pixabay.

Effort to Abandon Electoral College Gains Steam. Here’s What It Would Ruin for America.

/in , , , , , , /by

Colorado is joining a list of states attempting to overturn the way Americans have selected their presidents for over two centuries.

The Colorado Legislature recently passed a bill to join an interstate effort called the “interstate compact,” to attempt to sidestep the Electoral College system defined by the Constitution. Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, called the Electoral College an “undemocratic relic” and vowed to sign the bill into law.

So far, 12 states representing 172 Electoral College votes have passed the initiative into law. With the addition of Colorado (which has nine votes), that number will rise to 181. They need 270 for the compact to go into effect. It would then undoubtedly be challenged in the courts.

Some major voices on the left were gleeful about the potential change.

While the Constitution, intentionally, gives wide latitude to states to create their own electoral systems, the law passed in Colorado, along with the rest of this effort, would be unprecedented. It would be the first time states potentially outsource their Electoral College votes to the will of the nation as a whole, rather than having elections determined by their own voters. The result of this, ironically, could be very undemocratic.

For instance, if the people of Colorado vote overwhelmingly for a Democrat, yet the total popular vote of the nation goes Republican, all of the state’s votes would go to the Republican, essentially overturning the will of the people in Colorado.

The Electoral College is already fairly democratic. Nearly every state switched to direct, democratic elections of electoral votes in the early 19th century, as opposed to selection by state legislatures. What the national popular vote would do is overturn the concept of federalism, which recognizes that states have unique interests that deserve representation in the electoral system. We are not just a nation of individuals, but a nation of communities and states.

Some have dismissed the Electoral College system as outmoded and unjust. But they are mistaken—the Electoral College system remains highly relevant and necessary today. The 2016 election actually demonstrated that.

In 2016, states that had gone Democratic in presidential politics for a generation flipped to Republican, in large part because of a unique candidate who appealed to their interests. While one candidate capitalized on their support, the other took them for granted and focused elsewhere. The result was a startling upset that demonstrates why the Framers wanted an Electoral College.

Without an Electoral College, candidates could more easily write off certain constituencies located in limited areas. The Electoral College binds those votes up with a larger mass of votes so that in order to win the whole, candidates have to appeal to the interests of more constituents.

Under a popular vote system, candidates could ignore entire localities and focus on driving up votes among their natural supporters.

Many on the left have also complained that the Electoral College gives an undue weight to small states, which, in their minds, are conservative. 

It’s true that small states are given a boost because Electoral College votes are based on population and Senate votes. Since every state automatically has two senators, small states do get slightly more weight per their population. But in practice, this ends up benefitting Democrats just as much as Republicans.

In 2018, for instance, the 10 smallest states sent 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans to the Senate, and the 10 largest states sent 11 Democrats and nine Republicans to the Senate.

This system of electors is not perfect, of course. But it is the best system for a large and diverse country like the United States, as it favors candidates who do the best job of appealing to diverse interests and not just the big population centers.

In fact, while the Founding Fathers disagreed on many things, the Electoral College was one thing that received the most wide acceptance, as Alexander Hamilton recorded in Federalist 68:

The mode of appointment of the chief magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system … which has escaped without severe censure. … I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.

In addition to protecting diverse interests, the diffused federal nature of the Electoral College is also a vital tool to counteract election fraud and contentious recounts that could undo the public will. 

Imagine if the 2000 recount of the presidential contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush included not just Florida, but the entire nation. That’s what would have happened if the Electoral College weren’t in place to isolate election systems from each other.

It doesn’t take long to see how the new system that the Colorado bill aims for could become a nightmare to deal with in other ways, too, especially in tightly contested races.

This Twitter thread explains one highly plausible scenario in which the national popular vote is decided by around 100,000 votes—a tiny margin given the nation’s population is over 320 million.

If Colorado were to narrowly choose a Democrat, while the other states chose the Republican by a wide margin, Colorado would have no way of making the other states conduct a recount.

The people of Colorado would essentially be forced to throw the election to a candidate they didn’t support.

Even more problematic is the effort in New Jersey to strip President Donald Trump from the state ballot over his refusal to release his tax returns. This will likely be ruled unconstitutional, but consider what it would do if implemented under a national popular vote: With Trump off the ballot in all of New Jersey, it would skew the vote for the entire nation.

Interestingly, stripping a candidate from the ballot has been used as a tactic against a Republican presidential candidate before. Southern states made it nearly impossible to create ballots for Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election, which severely depressed his support in those states.

Fortunately, because of the Electoral College, Lincoln was able to win without these states, even though he ended up with only around 39 percent of the popular vote.

If the nation had simply taken a popular vote at the time, Lincoln may never have been elected president.

At the end of the day, the Colorado law is unlikely to ever be put into effect, despite the best efforts of activists.

It’s important to note that while Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has publicly voiced support for abolishing the Electoral College, she has said it would take a constitutional amendment to do so.

“There are some things that I would like to change, one is the Electoral College,” she said in 2017 when asked about things she’d change in the Constitution. “But that would require a constitutional amendment and amending our Constitution is powerfully hard to do.”

Given the unlikeliness of such an amendment—which, according to Gallup, actually reached a high point of popularity after the 2016 election—national popular vote activists have turned to more indirect means to accomplish their ends.

This misguided attempt to subvert the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College has been cooked up for partisan purposes. It is based on the false notion that Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016 reflected a failure in our electoral system—not an abysmal candidate—and that this “relic” from the founding stands in the way of progressive dominance of U.S. politics.

Such a view is not only partisan, but historically ignorant. It overlooks all that the Electoral College has produced—chiefly, a stable political system that forces politicians to reckon with our nation’s diverse needs.

We would be wise to cling to that system and reject these machinations to upend it.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: @JarrettStepman.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Josh Carter on Unsplash.

Humanists: Tear Down That Cross!

/in , , , , /by

This week the Supreme Court will hear arguments about a large memorial cross on a busy highway in Bladensburg, Maryland. The American Humanist Association argues that it is an assault on the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The Bladensburg Cross was built primarily by a group of mothers after World War I who mourned the loss of their sons in the Great War. Forty-nine men from Prince George’s County in Maryland are memorialized on the cross which was built in their honor in 1925.

Later a highway was constructed that passed the cross, making it widely visible. Jeremy Dys, Deputy General Counsel of First Liberty Institute, which is defending the cross before the Supreme Court said in an interview for our television program: “They mimicked the design of the gravestones that their sons were buried under in Europe. And so it stood there without any complaint until about five years ago when some atheist groups got together and decided that the presence of that memorial on public property is offensive in violating the Constitution. The Fourth Circuit has agreed with them.”

The Humanists’ website states, “…the longer a constitutional violation like this persists, the greater the harm to non-Christian residents forced to encounter the cross year after year.”

Does the Constitution mandate that the cross be torn down? An honest look at our history shows the atheists are the ones out of step with our traditions, as opposed to the 84 percent of Americans who support that cross.

Was the establishment clause violated when:

  • The Constitution was signed “in the Year of Our Lord” (as in Jesus)?
  • George Washington became the first president under the Constitution, and was sworn in on the Bible, which he leaned over and kissed? Then in his First Inaugural Address in New York City, he mentioned his gratitude to God repeatedly. Then he led the cabinet and the Congressional members and Supreme Court justices over to St. Paul’s Chapel for a two hour Christian worship service, which included communion, in which he also partook.
  • The same men who gave us the First Amendment hired chaplains for the military and chaplains for the House and Senate? This practice has been challenged, all the way up to the Supreme Court, but SCOTUS ruled in favor of the chaplains (1983)—since such a practice predated the Constitution itself.
  • Jefferson approved and regularly attended the Sunday morning Christian worship services held in the U. S. Capitol building as president? Jefferson even made a suggestion or two on potential preachers for pulpit supply.
  • James Madison also regularly attended those services when he was president as well?

These last two facts are significant because if the ACLU and the American Humanist Association and their ilk had patron saints, they would be Jefferson and Madison.

  • President Abraham Lincoln called for the annual holiday of Thanksgiving (to God), which we continue to celebrate year after year? He also called for a day of prayer on March 30, 1863, in which he declared: “It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God . . . and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.”
  • FDR issued copies of the New Testament and the Psalms to servicemen in World War II? He also gave out a Jewish version which had passages from the Old Testament. He wrote:  “As Commander-in-Chief, I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States.” I have copy of one of these New Testaments. It was my dad’s, who served in the Navy in World War II.

And on it goes.

Joseph Story, a Harvard Law professor and Supreme Court Justice in the early 1800s, wrote a massive commentary on the Constitution. He said about the First Amendment: “An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.” Yet that’s exactly the false interpretation of the First Amendment that the humanists are demanding.

What the American Humanist Association and the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation are trying to do is to remake America into something the settlers and founders of this nation never intended it to be—a secular wasteland.

Perhaps Ike said it best. In 1955, President Eisenhower said, “Without God, there could be no American form of Government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first—the most basic—expression of Americanism. Thus the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God’s help, it will continue to be.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Supreme Court seems inclined to retain cross on public land

6 Key Exchanges From the Peace Cross Oral Argument

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by sspiehs3 from Pixabay.

Corporate Whistleblower Center Looking for Partners

/in , , /by

How cool is this!  The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well!

Regular readers know that I’ve been telling you about scams involving Medicare and Medicaid that are often perpetrated through long term care facilities for the elderly or disabled.

NURSING-HOME-FRAUD
Nursing home fraud on the rise.

And, I’ve told you that if you help the government find the fraud, you can make money if the government recovers funds stolen from taxpayers.

Now here comes a group banding together to go after this fraud with the lure of making money AND making yourself such a hero you could run for Congress!

That last part made me laugh because I’ve said on previous occasions that one could craft a whole campaign for elected office around the goal of exposing fraud, waste and abuse involving taxpayer dollars.

From PR Newswire,

Corporate Whistleblower Center Now Goes After Nursing Homes Ripping Off Medicare/Medicaid From California to Florida for Whistleblower Rewards and a Physician or Investor is Invited to Participate as a Partner-Become a Local Hero-Make Money

The Corporate Whistleblower Center says, “We have just launched our most ambitious initiative ever to go after nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities, rehab centers and or acute care facilities that are overbilling Medicare or Medicaid for services that were never performed, and we need some financial partners in some specific states. When we say ‘services never performed’ we are referring to facilities that are so understaffed their patients are prematurely dying. Short staffing is the foundation and starting point for our state specific whistleblower reward initiatives. While these types of healthcare facilities might be extremely understaffed-they are billing Medicare or Medicaid as if they are fully staffed.

“We are inviting a successful physician, dentist or an investor in one of our targeted states such as California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois or Ohio to financially participate in this venture and to share in the whistleblower rewards. A medical doctor/dentist or investor who financially participates with us in one of the states we have mentioned could probably run for Congress in a couple years after the notoriety they will gain for their participation in our initiative as we would like to discuss with them anytime at 866-714-6466. We also want to emphasize this initiative is very focused on making certain our financial partners make money.”

Go here for more to see additional states the group plans to target!

Of course, I am not advocating for this new ‘business’ model just bringing you news you might find of interest.

You know what you need to do, right!—keep an eye on granny (or any family member) who resides at a long term care facility to assure that they are being cared for properly and that there is no financial funny-business going on with Medicare or Medicaid. Report suspicions of fraud or medical abuse!

NOTE: Services are available in these states: Alabama – AL | Alaska – AK | Arizona – AZ | Arkansas – AR | California – CA | Colorado – CO | Connecticut – CT | Delaware – DE | District of Columbia – DC | Florida – FL | Georgia – GA | Hawaii – HI | Idaho – ID | Illinois – IL | Indiana – IN | Iowa – IA | Kansas – KS | Kentucky – KY | Louisiana – LA | Maine – ME | Maryland – MD | Massachusetts – MA | Michigan – MI | Minnesota – MN | Mississippi – MS | Missouri – MO | Montana – MT | Nebraska – NE | Nevada – NV | New Hampshire – NH |New Jersey – NJ | New Mexico – NM | New York – NY | North Carolina – NC | North Dakota – ND | Ohio – OH | Oklahoma – OK | Oregon – OR| Pennsylvania – PA | Puerto Rico – PR | Rhode Island – RI | South Carolina – SC | South Dakota – SD | Tennessee – TN | Texas – TX | Utah – UT | Vermont – VT | Virgin Island – VI | Virginia – VA | Washington – WA | West Virginia – WV | Wisconsin – WI | Wyoming – WY

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column with images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Uncle Ted — Case NOT Closed

/in , , , , , /by

Everything must be revealed.

TRANSCRIPT

I’m Michael Voris coming to you from Rome in the aftermath of a phony summit which accomplished no good of note — but did manage to deflect from the real evil.

To show how unimportant this was, and how it was just a giant PR stunt meant to make the Pope and his homosexualist henchmen appear to be doing something, recall this singular fact: That despite the prior knowledge that all these men had of Theodore McCarrick’s evil, they never felt the least bit of interest in having any kind of summit about sexual predation.

It was only because the news broke about McCarrick that anything was done, meaning, of course, that if McCarrick’s altar boy victim of decades ago had not come forward more than a year ago, it would be just business as usual here in Rome.

All of this means that the McCarrick case cannot be swept away, and everyone feels as if this summit closes a sad chapter — oh no, definitely not. The recent defrocking of Theodore McCarrick is a case not closed by any stretch of the imagination.

While many in Rome want to truly put this to rest and hope that faithful Catholics forget about the massive damage done to Holy Mother Church by this former prince of the Church, the truth is he was a prince of Satan working to destroy the Church from within.

He still clings to his innocence without making one — not even one — statement of remorse or apology or admittance of his crimes. For the sake of review, he was a homosexual priest, bishop, archbishop and cardinal preying on both boys and young men for years.

He spent a year of his young life in what appears to be a Swiss training center established by the Soviets. He established recruiting teams within his dioceses so that selected priests would be sent abroad in order to attract young seminarians to his diocese and then later would entice them to have sex with him.

He would troll through seminaries looking for seminarians to add them to his harem of male lovers in an effort to satisfy his own distorted and warped sexual desires. There was, of course, the infamous Jersey Shore beach house where he and all of his homosexual clerical friends would gather with seminarians for their sex parties on a regular basis.

He would also provide his beach house to other homosexual priest and bishop friends so they too could use his den of iniquity. He promoted many homosexual priests to positions of influence within the U.S. Church.

He actively promoted and lobbied his fellow bishops and cardinals — both in the United States and in Rome — in appointing a large number of auxiliary bishops to become shepherds in many other U.S. dioceses. And many of these former auxiliary bishops were in fact under McCarrick at one time or another.

In short, if you were one of “McCarrick’s boys,” you could be assured of a happy career in the Church guaranteed and supported by McCarrick. There is the millions of dollars raised and moved around by McCarrick all in an effort to buy influence, power and prestige, making him completely “untouchable” within the Church. So why is this a case not closed?

Because there is a mountain of information we simply do not know. We just don’t know the full extent of all of his evil endeavors. In order to look at this massive problem which needs to be cleaned up in the Church, you have to approach this with the greatest of objectivity and prayer.

McCarrick’s treachery needs to be treated the way you would approach any investigation into a major agent or spy. Essentially the McCarrick case needs to be looked at from a counterintelligence perspective.

This is a person who infiltrated the Church — most likely by Communists — spreading lies and deceit, promoting those he selected into positions of power. While all the time he continued to gain more and more influence and pulling as many levers of control that he could grab onto for his own selfish benefit. He continued to live a double life, manipulating any and all who came within his orbit.

We know that with all the damage which has been done, there is much more which lies below the surface and has yet to be discovered. Like an iceberg, we only see the tip of McCarrick’s evil deeds. Most are still below the water-line, still hidden in the darkness.

We simply need to know the full extent of the damage done. To do this requires a tremendous level of effort by investigators who will not quit and who are determined to find out all that there is to find. This is a lifetime investigation which needs to happen into the whole history of McCarrick because he lived a lifetime of doing evil in the Church.

All the old files on McCarrick need to be reopened and reviewed — his old high school records to explain where he was for a missing 18 months during high school. Why was he expelled from one New York Catholic high school?

What was he doing in St. Gallen, Switzerland for a year after eventually graduating from high school? We need to see his seminary files, understand his relationship to New York Cdl. Spellman who ordained him, his diocesan files, all his correspondence, what he was doing in Puerto Rico after ordination at the island university.

We need to examine very closely who he chose to advance in the Church and why, who he supported and/or covered for as a bishop, archbishop or cardinal. Those very clerics are still at this very moment in their positions of power and influence owing directly to him — men like Blase Cupich, Kevin Farrell and Joseph Tobin.

Although gone from the scene officially, Donald Wuerl needs to be looked at extremely closely as well because he covered for McCarrick for years, finally getting busted for his lies in the secular press.

Like any major counterintelligence investigation into a spy, McCarrick’s activities rank among the worst of any spy in human history, and this is not an exaggeration. Practically no spy in history has flown under the radar for 50 years and caused this level of damage.

To be a true “agent provocateur” in the Church, you have to be a real master manipulator, a great deceiver and a consummate liar.

Spying is considered to be the world’s second oldest profession, and McCarrick did it well, with the help from the father of lies, Satan. But let’s not forget that there are many people in positions of power within the Church in the United States and in Rome who do not want McCarrick’s deeds to become fully known because they would be exposed as his proteges and need to be dismissed from the clerical state as well.

So the only course of action these “McCarrick boys” have is to continue lying about the truth, above all else and keep the cover-up and deflections going. That’s what this summit the past few days has been about: covering for McCarrick’s allies.

They will continue to lie about knowing anything and hold fast to the line that all the rot in the Church has nothing to do with priests, bishops or cardinals being homosexual. It is they who want the case closed on McCarrick. And this is why this cannot happen. As long as the current corrupt homosexual regime reigns in Rome, this will never be done by the Church.

It’s why wealthy lay Catholics must step up and pony up money for assorted private investigations. Private eyes must be hired, research teams involved, financial forensics experts must be employed — not to get revenge on McCarrick himself, but to prevent the McCarrick evil from spreading any further in the very agents he promoted and advanced to carry on his evil long after he was gone from the scene.

Now is the time for the light to truly shine into the darkness against every aspect of McCarrick’s wicked life. And no amount of phony cover-up summits or synods should distract from this overarching truth. The entire case file of the notorious Uncle Ted must now be opened.

Ubi est tenebrae fiat lux — where there is darkness, let there be light.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column with video and images is republished with permission.

Supreme Court Will Consider Whether A 40-Foot Cross Must Be Removed To Appease Atheists And Dishonor Fallen WWI Soldiers

/in , , , , /by

ANN ARBOR, MI – On Wednesday, February 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether to reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision which ordered the removal or disfigurement of a 40-foot tall cross erected in 1925 to memorialize the World War I service and death of forty-nine soldiers from Prince George County, Maryland.

The “Peace Cross of Bladensburg” located at the entrance to the town of Bladensburg, Maryland sits on a rectangular base which includes the words “Valor,” “Endurance,” “Courage,” and “Devotion.” A bronze plaque lists the names of the forty-nine fallen sons of Bladensburg. Above the names is the inscription: “This Memorial Cross Dedicated To The Heroes of Prince George’s County Maryland Who Lost Their Lives In The Great War For The Liberty Of The World.”

The Fourth Circuit ruled that the cross is the “preeminent symbol of Christianity,” and that while the cross may generally serve as a symbol of death and memorialization, it only holds that value because of its affiliation with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, engaged in the heated culture war battle over the meaning of the Establishment Clause, by filing an amicus brief (friend of the court brief) to save the Cross. The stakes are high. Crosses throughout the nation, including those in the Arlington National Cemetery, will be in jeopardy should the Supreme Court affirm the lower court decision.

This is the second amicus brief filed by TMLC. The first brief, filed in July 2018, asked the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit’s ruling against the cross. Once the Supreme Court agreed to review the ruling, this second brief, filed on December 19, 2018, asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Fourth Circuit’s decision.

The federal lawsuit challenging the “peace cross” was brought in 2014 by three atheists who occasionally drove past the cross and claimed they were offended. TMLC’s brief authored by Erin Kuenzig addresses their claim by arguing,

“Allowing a historic war memorial to be destroyed to quell some momentary discomfort plaintiffs feel when they drive past the Bladensburg monument would do real and lasting harm to this country; it would send a message of disrespect to our fallen soldiers and their families, and it would deprive future generations of a treasured piece of history.”

TMLC’s brief also claims that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision shows a hostility toward religion, particularly Christianity, not intended by the Constitution.

Moreover, TMLC’s brief importantly points out,

“We cannot change the stories of the dead to appease the all too easily offended living. Any harm respondents feel they incur due to seeing the shape of a cross when they happen to drive past the Bladensburg memorial, pales in comparison to the real and lasting harm that destroying such memorials will cause to this country as a whole, to veterans’ families, and to the memories of the men and women who are honored by them.”

Clearly, use of the Latin Cross in 1925 reflected the custom in Europe during World War I where the cross became the principal grave marker in cemeteries where soldiers were buried as described in the opening lines “In Flanders Fields,” a famous poem of the time whose opening line begins “In Flanders fields the poppies blow, between the crosses, row on row.”

In this case, the purpose of the cross is to honor the dead using a historical symbol of death and sacrifice. The decision to destroy this memorial, simply because the plaintiffs claim to be offended by the memorial’s Latin cross, evidences an intolerance to Christianity that is wholly inconsistent with our nation’s history and with the purpose and meaning of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Click here to read TMLC’s brief filed on December 19, 2018.

Click here to read TMLC’s first brief.

Thank you for your continued support of the Thomas More Law Center. Your donations help us to be Battle Ready to Defend America!

EDITORS NOTE: This TMLC column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Algerina Perna /The Baltimore Sun via AP.

A Video Message from a Real Hollywood Hero

/in , , , , , /by

“Something’s gone wrong, for all our vigilance and battle scars over the Bill of Rights, have we let the flame of freedom’s torch grow cold? Because there can be no torch to pass where there’s no flame.”

RELATED ARTICLES AND VIDEOS:

“Anyone Can Be Great Because Anyone Can Serve”

Matthew Cubeiro: California Struggles To Seize Guns From People Who Shouldn’t Have Them

Supporters of HR8 Are Lying About Its Chance of Efficacy

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA video with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by skeeze on Pixabay Pixabay.

Why Gender Dysphoria Must Remain a Bar to Military Service

/in , , , , , , /by

In normal usage, “discrimination” is an ugly word.

But discrimination has two meanings. The first and more familiar definition is “the treatment of a person or particular group of people differently, in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated.” Discrimination of that sort is clearly unacceptable.

The second, less common usage is the “the ability to judge the quality of something, based on its difference from other, similar things.”

Earlier this month, several members of Congress introduced a bill to allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., one of the bill’s sponsors, said in introducing the bill, “President Trump’s ban on transgender service members is discrimination. It undermines our military readiness, and it is an insult to the brave and patriotic transgender Americans who choose to serve in our military.”

What members of Congress like the sponsors of this bill—and indeed, the American public—often seem not to grasp is that discrimination—the less common meaning of the word—takes place every day at military recruiting stations across America.

That’s neither unjust, nor prejudicial. And contrary to Gillibrand, who aspires to be our next commander in chief, it’s necessary to ensure the readiness of the military and protect at-risk individuals.

Some examples are in order. Have asthma? You’re probably ineligible to join the military. A depressive disorder? Sorry, no. Torn rotator cuff in your shoulder? Nope. Come back perhaps when it heals or is repaired. 

It’s the difference between an individual who is able to serve, and those for whom service presents a risk—either of not being able to complete military service or of doing so without incurring harm to themselves. In a strict sense, that’s discrimination.   

By law, the military can accept only “qualified, effective and able-bodied individuals.” That means people who are expected to need more than routine medical care or treatment are not qualified to join.

Without this lawful ability to “discriminate,” we would place our military in jeopardy of not being able to protect the nation.

That brings us to the issue of service by transgender individuals. Anyone who wants to serve their nation is worthy of our nation’s thanks, because not enough do. A mere desire to serve, however, does not equal qualification.  

What is often described as “Trump’s transgender ban” is anything but. Underreported is the fact that the policy that the Pentagon wishes to put in place—but that has been thus far been stayed by the court system—is far more permissive and evidence-based than the policy that existed for decades prior to June 2016, when President Barack Obama’s defense secretary, Ashton Carter, abruptly unveiled a new policy.

Before that, individuals who identified as transgender were automatically excluded from the military. Under the new policy devised by then-Defense Secretary James Mattis, the Pentagon makes a distinction between individuals who identify as transgender, and those who identify as transgender and experience gender dysphoria.

It’s necessary to get a bit technical here. An individual who is transgender is a person whose gender identity does not correspond to that person’s biological sex. Transgender individuals who suffer from gender dysphoria often “experience significant distress and/or problems functioning associated with this conflict between the way they feel and think of themselves (referred to as experienced or expressed gender) and their physical or assigned gender.” 

Unlike the previous policy, the new rules allow individuals who are transgender but not experiencing gender dysphoria to join and serve in the military.

Why does the policy prohibit service by individuals who experience gender dysphoria? It’s principally because exhaustive Defense Department clinical and U.S. survey data confirms that individuals with gender dysphoria attempt suicide at rates between eight and 10 times the average for individuals not suffering from gender dysphoria. 

Individuals with gender dysphoria experience severe anxiety again at between eight and nine times the rate of individuals without gender dysphoria. What’s more, there is no evidence that medical treatment, including gender-reassignment surgery, can remedy those challenges.

Military service is inherently stressful. It takes service members and puts them in unfamiliar, lonely, austere, and often hostile areas. Stress, anxiety, and suicide are already existential military problems. Indeed, the suicide rate for active-duty military members has been slowly rising over the past couple of decades.

At one point, it was lower than the U.S. national average. In 2015, however, in the active component, it stood at 20.2 per 100,000 service members, compared with the U.S. average of 13.3 per 100,000.

It would, therefore, be reckless and ill-advised to allow individuals demonstrably at a higher risk of suicide and anxiety to join the military and be subject to the increased stresses of military duty—both for the readiness of their units and for the safety of the individual.

Critics, in raising objections, ask why then can’t transgender individuals with gender dysphoria be allowed to serve far from the front lines, perhaps in a desk or office job? Surely, they say, that wouldn’t be stressful.

But the military doesn’t work that way.

In order for the military to be effective, to borrow an analogy, every player must be able to get on the field and play their position. If there were a job divorced from stress, it would be reasonable to ask why we would need a uniformed service member to fill it at all.

Still others ask how such a tiny fraction of the military force that would be transgender, if allowed, could constitute a risk to a force the size of the U.S. military.

That ignores the fact that the U.S. military often goes to war one squad, one plane, one ship at a time. Often, the performance of a single individual can mean the difference between mission success and failure.

Finally, those opposed to the restrictions point to examples of transgender individuals who have successfully served in the military, including those who have been decorated for bravery.

Kudos to these individuals for serving, and serving well. But the military must set entrance criteria based on broad evidence, as opposed to isolated examples. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, if allowed to enlist, would present unacceptable risks to both a prospective military unit and to themselves.

Thus far, the courts have seen fit to substitute their judgment on military enlistment criteria in place of that of the commander in chief. That’s unfortunate.

What would be even more unfortunate is if a decision were made to permit individuals with gender dysphoria to serve in the military, and in so doing, took a reckless gamble with both the readiness of the U.S. military and the safety of those patriotic individuals.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Thomas Spoehr

Thomas Spoehr

Thomas W. Spoehr, a retired Army lieutenant general, is director of the Center for National Defense at The Heritage Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLE: What a Judge’s Ruling on Drafting Women Means for Military

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured image by Defence-Imagery on Pixabay.