President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2020 budget proposal would eliminate the federal deficit in 15 years, add new work requirements for welfare recipients, and fund additional construction of a border wall.
The reaction to the spending blueprint by Democrats was predictably negative.
The $4.7 trillion proposal, which projects a $1.1 trillion deficit, also asks Congress to cut discretionary spending, something it hasn’t done in recent years, even when under Republican control.
“You mention mandatory spending. It is a driver. We have more reforms than any other president’s budget in history, but, look, what has happened for far too long is that Congress has blamed mandatory spending and then increased discretionary spending, which they have a vote on every single year by large degrees,” Office of Management and Budget acting Director Russ Vought told The Daily Signal on Monday.
The fiscal 2020 spending blueprint cuts non-defense discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board, for a total of $2.7 trillion in savings for taxpayers over 10 years.
The OMB projects a balanced budget by 2034. Deficit spending, now 5 percent of the gross domestic product, would fall to 1 percent by 2029, according to the projections.
“They continue to let a paradigm exist in this country that says for every dollar in defense spending, we’re going to increase nondefense spending by a dollar,” Vought said at a press briefing. “We think we need to break that paradigm. We don’t think that paradigm allows us to get our fiscal house in order.”
Presidents are constitutionally required to present a budget proposal, but such proposals are never enacted as delivered. The document stands as an outline of administration priorities and represents what each department is requesting from Congress.
The budget requests seek $8.6 billion for an additional 722 miles of border wall construction, with $5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security and $3.6 billion for the Defense Department construction budget to go toward the wall.
The budget proposes $478 million to hire and support 1,750 additional law enforcement officers and agents for Customs and Border Protection and for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The budget also would implement a requirement of at least 20 hours a week for work or job training for certain welfare benefits, such as food stamps. Work requirements for recipients in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program was core to the welfare-reform legislation passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, in 1996.
“In terms of work requirements, it’s something that has been viewed as a success since the 1990s. We expand on it,” Vought said. “It is something we have long viewed as important with the same principles of reducing dependency that we saw in TANF and apply them to housing and to food stamps and to Medicaid. … There will be many workforce-development programs that will be funded as part of this budget.”
The Trump budget proposes spending $750 billion for the Defense Department. Of that, $718 billion is for the National Defense Strategy’s efforts to rebuilding readiness and for improving performance and affordability through reform. It also focuses on strategic competition with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.
It includes $4.8 billion in the Department of Health and Human Services for prevention and treatment programs for opioid abuse.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement Monday the administration’s proposal benefits the “wealthiest 1 percent.”
“After adding $2 trillion to the deficit with the GOP tax scam for the rich, President Trump wants to ransack as much as $2 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid,” she said. “While demanding billions more for his wasteful, ineffective wall, President Trump will steal from students and hungry families, from rural communities and American farmers, from clean air and clean water, and from vital, job-creating investments nationwide.”
The proposal would also limit what Medicare recipients have to pay for prescription drugs. Currently, Medicare has a 5 percent co-pay for high-priced medicines that could cost as much as $1,000 per pill. The dollar amount wasn’t specified.
Vought responded to one question about whether that constituted “cutting Medicare.”
“He’s not cutting Medicare in this budget,” Vought explained. “What we are doing is putting forward reforms that lower drug prices. Because Medicare pays such a very large share of drug prices in this country, this has the impact of finding savings.
“We’re also finding waste, fraud, and abuse. But Medicare spending will go up every single year by healthy margins, and there are no structural changes,” he said.
NOTE:One of the great things about writing a blog of your own is that you can post things that you decide are vitally important for your readers to hear! Author Leo Hohmann gave the following speech to a Republican audience in Georgia over this last weekend and received a standing ovation. I know you have piles of things to read, but you must read the speech and then decide if you are in, or out, of the war to save America!
Knowing your enemy: The ‘Red-Green Axis of evil’ shows its face in Washington
How many of you have been watching the news in recent weeks and wondering, “is this still America? What is going on?”
How many Americans must be wondering, where did this Ilhan Omar, covered in the Islamic headscarf, come from and how in the world did she end up in Congress? We’re told she’s from Minnesota but she seems obsessed with demonizing Israel and speaks sympathetically of ISIS fighters.
Who is this other new Congresswoman with the foul mouth, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, who bragged to the world that she would take drastic action against President Trump. She told her young son she would “impeach the Mother F’er?”
Who does this Linda Sarsour, also adorned in the headscarf, think she is, referring to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as some sort of white supremacist.
Pelosi is “a typical white feminist doing the work of powerful white men,” Sarsour posted on Facebook. Did Pelosi deserve such a harsh rebuke for simply considering disciplinary action against the brazen anti-Semite Ilhan Omar?
Two years ago, I wrote a book. It’s called ‘Stealth Invasion, Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad.’
I saw these people coming. Let me tell you how I knew that the fox was already inside the hen house.
I’m stopping here, but please go to LeoHohmann.comand read the entire speech. It won’t take you long, just do it!
By the way, did you know that Linda Sarsour went to Georgia to campaign for Stacy Abrams for governor? I didn’t. There is much, much, more you might not have known!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-03-12 07:34:142019-03-12 07:35:36Georgia Republicans Learned about the Red-Green Axis Recently and You Should Too!
I told you recently that it’s election year in Canada and if Trudeau is reelected it is only going to get worse for us as he has put out a Canadian welcome mat to the world.
Did you know that Mexicans and Romanians can go to Canada without even a visa! So guess where they are going once in Canada!
Illegal border crossings from Canada quietly rising, data shows
DERBY LINE, Vermont — More than 960 people crossed into the U.S. illegally from the northern border with Canada last year, according to data released from Customs and Border Protection.
While that number is a tiny fraction compared to the migration across the border with Mexico, it represented a 91 percent increase from the prior fiscal year, the data showed.
The Trump administration’s rhetoric on border security has largely homed in on the southern border, which has seen an influx of thousands of families with children from Central America seeking asylum in the United States.
But officials have also seen an increase of illegal crossings on the northern border in the last fiscal year, according to the data. In fiscal year 2017, immigration agents apprehended 504 people crossing illegally from Canada, compared to 963 in fiscal year 2018, the border patrol data showed.
A large percentage of that spike came from the Swanton border patrol sector — along the border of New Hampshire, Vermont and New York — where agents apprehended 548 people in 2018, up from 165 in all of 2017.
Preliminary data from October to January shows 465 apprehensions from Canada, with 294 in the Swanton sector.
Ross [ Border Patrol Agent Richard Ross] said he believed there may be a perception that traveling from Canada was “safer” and the increase could be attributed to recent immigration changes in Canada that allow those from some countries, such as Mexico and Romania, to enter without a visa.
He said some immigrants looking to get into the U.S. illegally could pay a few hundred dollars for a flight to Canada, pay a small electronic travel authorization fee and make their way into the United States.
More here. You will learn that smugglers have already figured this out!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-03-11 07:09:322019-03-11 07:12:37IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF TIME: Now Mexicans and Others are Coming in Across our Northern Border
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Here are some reasons why H.RES. 183 fails to stop hate:
H.RES. 183 uses the First Amendment as the basis of its condemning anti-Semitism. This violates the freedom of expression provision.
The title of H.RES. 183 condemns anti-Semitism but also condemns Muslim discrimination. It was Rep. Ilhan Omar (Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party of Minnesota) who published multiple the anti-Semitic tweets that led to this resolution. Omar is a Muslim. Therefore, this resolution is to protect her and the Muslim ummah (community) as much as the Jewish people. There is no mention of those spewing anti-Christian, or any other belief system for that matter, hate and bigotry.
H.RES. 183 reads the First Amendment is “committed to the principles of tolerance and religious freedom.” H.RES. 183 does not condemn, or even mention, the person who was clearly anti-Semitic and intolerant, Rep. Ilhan Omar.
The word tolerance does not appear in the First Amendment. World Net Dailyreported in October, 2018, “A deputy communications director for Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party has been suspended for a week for a tweet threatening members of the GOP with ‘guillotines’.” Tolerance is a two way street. When tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide.
H.RES. 183 mentions “Islamophobia.” Islamophobia is the greatest concern. H.RES. 183. “(5) acknowledges the harm suffered by Muslims and others from the harassment, discrimination, and violence that result from anti-Muslim bigotry.” Use of this word stifles freedom of speech. There are atrocities committed by the followers of Mohammed globally. These are not mentioned, nor are there examples give such as the atrocities committed by ISIS, in the resolution.
H. RES. 183 leaves out Christians in Congress who have received death threats. H.RES. 183 (7) condemns the death threats received by Jewish and Muslim Members of Congress, including in recent weeks;
H. RES. 183 ham strings law enforcement from targeting criminal illegal aliens, terrorists and gang members (i.e. al Qaeda, ISIS, MS 13, Mexican human traffickers) (8) encourages law enforcement and government officials to avoid conduct that raises the specter of unconstitutional profiling against anyone because of their race, religion, nationality, political, or particular social group, including the assignment of blame or targeting members of an entire religious group for increased suspicion, based on the conduct of a single individual or small group of individuals;
H. RES. 183 relies also on the Fourteenth Amendment which reads:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Bret Kavanaugh hearing is a prime example of guilty until proven innocent. The Green New Deal is an example of depriving Americans of their property and liberty. The New York State law allowing infanticide deprives every new born baby (a person) of life.
“It says something about the progressive movement today that it has no trouble denouncing Republican racism, real and alleged, every day of the week but has so much trouble calling out a naked anti-Semite in its own ranks. This is how progressivism becomes Corbynism… It’s how self-declared anti-fascists develop their own forms of fascism. Why are they afraid of open debate? And what about all the bigotry on their side?”
H.RES. 183 will not stop the hate and bigotry in our current political environment. It actually protects certain classes over others.
As Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) warned on the House floor, “What makes this so dangerous and the reason I will vote against this resolution, is because we came here because of an anti-Semitic remark, and we came here to condemn anti-Semitism, but this resolution… now condemns just about everything.”
When you condemn everything, your condemn nothing. H.RES. 183 is a failure on many counts.
Condemning anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the people of the United States and condemning anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 7, 2019
Mr. Raskin (for himself and Mr. Richmond) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
RESOLUTION
Condemning anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the people of the United States and condemning anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States.
Whereas the first amendment to the Constitution established the United States as a country committed to the principles of tolerance and religious freedom, and the 14th amendment to the Constitution established equal protection of the laws as the heart of justice in the United States;
Whereas adherence to these principles is vital to the progress of the American people and the diverse communities and religious groups of the United States;
Whereas whether from the political right, center, or left, bigotry, discrimination, oppression, racism, and imputations of dual loyalty threaten American democracy and have no place in American political discourse;
Whereas White supremacists in the United States have exploited and continue to exploit bigotry and weaponize hate for political gain, targeting traditionally persecuted peoples, including African Americans, Native Americans, and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, immigrants, and others with verbal attacks, incitement, and violence;
Whereas the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., taught that persecution of any American is an assault on the rights and freedoms of all Americans;
Whereas on August 11 and 12, 2017, self-identified neo-Confederates, White nationalists, neo-Nazis, and Ku Klux Klansmen held White supremacist events in Charlottesville, Virginia, where they marched on a synagogue under the Nazi swastika, engaged in racist and anti-Semitic demonstrations and committed brutal and deadly violence against peaceful Americans;
Whereas a White nationalist murdered nine African-American worshipers at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, on the evening of June 17, 2015, in the hopes of igniting a nationwide race war;
Whereas, on October 27, 2018, the perpetrator of the deadliest attack on Jewish people in the history of the United States killed 11 worshippers at the Tree of Life Synagogue building in Pittsburgh and reportedly stated that he “wanted all Jews to die”;
Whereas anti-Semitism is the centuries-old bigotry and form of racism faced by Jewish people simply because they are Jews;
Whereas in 2017 the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported a 37-percent increase in hate crimes against Jews or Jewish institutions and found that attacks against Jews or Jewish institutions made up 58.1 percent of all religious-based hate crimes;
Whereas there is an urgent need to ensure the safety and security of Jewish communities, including synagogues, schools, cemeteries, and other institutions;
Whereas Jews are the targets of anti-Semitic violence at even higher rates in many other countries than they are in the United States;
Whereas it is a foreign policy priority of the United States to monitor and combat anti-Semitism abroad;
Whereas anti-Semitism includes blaming Jews as Jews when things go wrong; calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or extremist view of religion; or making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotyped allegations about Jews;
Whereas Jewish people are subject in the media and political campaigns to numerous other dangerous anti-Semitic myths as well, including that Jews control the United States Government or seek global, political, and financial domination and that Jews are obsessed with money;
Whereas scapegoating and targeting of Jews in the United States have persisted for many years, including by the Ku Klux Klan, the America First Committee, and by modern neo-Nazis;
Whereas accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel or to the Jewish community than to the United States constitutes anti-Semitism because it suggests that Jewish citizens cannot be patriotic Americans and trusted neighbors, when Jews have loyally served our Nation every day since its founding, whether in public or community life or military service;
Whereas accusations of dual loyalty generally have an insidious and pernicious history, including—
(1) the discriminatory incarceration of Americans of Japanese descent during World War II on their basis of race and alleged dual loyalty;
(2) the Dreyfus affair, when Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish French artillery captain, was falsely convicted of passing secrets to Germany based on his Jewish background;
(3) when the loyalty of President John F. Kennedy was questioned because of his Catholic faith; and
(4) the post-9/11 conditions faced by Muslim-Americans in the United States, including Islamophobia and false and vicious attacks on and threats to Muslim-Americans for alleged association with terrorism;
Whereas anti-Muslim bigotry entails prejudicial attitudes towards Muslims and people who are perceived to be Muslim, including the irrational belief that Muslims are inherently violent, disloyal, and foreign;
Whereas Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim are subjected to false and dangerous stereotypes and myths including unfair allegations that they sympathize with individuals who engage in violence or terror or support the oppression of women, Jews, and other vulnerable communities;
Whereas in 2017, mosques were bombed in Bloomington, Minnesota, and burned in Austin, Texas, Victoria, Texas, Bellevue, Washington, and Thonotosassa, Florida, and mass attacks on Muslim communities were planned against communities in Islamberg, New York, in 2019, Jacksonville, Florida, in 2017, and Garden City, Kansas, in 2016;
Whereas the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that hate crimes against Muslims or Muslim institutions in the United States increased by over 99 percent between 2014 and 2016;
Whereas attacks motivated by bigotry against those who are Muslim or perceived to be Muslim have substantially increased since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks;
Whereas the violation of an individual’s civil rights based on his or her actual or perceived membership in a particular religious group clearly violates the Constitution and laws of the United States; and
Whereas all Americans, including Jews, Muslims, and Christians and people of all faiths and no faith, have a stake in fighting anti-Semitism, as all Americans have a stake in fighting every form of bigotry and hatred against people based on religion, race, or place of birth and origin: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) rejects the perpetuation of anti-Semitic stereotypes in the United States and around the world, including the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance, especially in the context of support for the United States-Israel alliance;
(2) condemns anti-Semitic acts and statements as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States;
(3) reaffirms its support for the mandate of the United States Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism as part of the broader policy priority of fostering international religious freedom and protecting human rights all over the world;
(4) rejects attempts to justify hatred or violent attacks as an acceptable expression of disapproval or frustration over political events in the Middle East or elsewhere;
(5) acknowledges the harm suffered by Muslims and others from the harassment, discrimination, and violence that result from anti-Muslim bigotry;
(6) condemns anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against all minorities as contrary to the values of the United States;
(7) condemns the death threats received by Jewish and Muslim Members of Congress, including in recent weeks;
(8) encourages law enforcement and government officials to avoid conduct that raises the specter of unconstitutional profiling against anyone because of their race, religion, nationality, political, or particular social group, including the assignment of blame or targeting members of an entire religious group for increased suspicion, based on the conduct of a single individual or small group of individuals; and
(9) encourages all public officials to confront the reality of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry, as well as historical struggles against them, to ensure that the United States will live up to the transcendent principles of tolerance, religious freedom, and equal protection as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the first and 14th amendments to the Constitution.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-03-08 16:26:062019-03-13 06:18:38Why The U.S. House Hate Resolution Fails To Stop Hate
The NY legislature has created a new Auschwitz dedicated to the execution of a whole segment of defenseless citizens. Satan is smiling. Charlie Daniels
Instead of baby we say fetus; instead of killing we say aborting; instead of dissect we say research; instead of extermination chambers we say abortion clinics. Chuck Norris, 2014
And we call it pro-choice instead of murder of unborn babies. So many euphemisms to hide the truth of this evil. Many endangered species are protected and heavy fines and jail time result for the destruction of these creatures. But our human babies are destroyed at the rate of 4,000 per day and we are now approaching 70 million dead children. Many Americans are not aware that for nearly all of our country’s existence, taking the life of a baby in the womb was prohibited.
Everything began to change in 1967 after years of organized campaigns by pro-aborts. In 1962, Sherri Finkbine, of Phoenix, Arizona Romper Room fame, had taken a sleeping pill her husband brought back from London. It was Thalidomide, a drug known for causing severe abnormalities of embryos. This drug was prescribed to pregnant women for morning sickness and extreme nausea. Finkbine traveled to Sweden for an abortion. Her situation was used in campaigns to legalize the murder of unborn babies.
By 1970, four states, New York, Alaska, Hawaii and Washington passed laws that basically allowed abortion on demand. Of those four, New York’s was the only law without a residency requirement and the state quickly became the nation’s abortion capital.
Just recently, New York’s Governor Cuomo was gleeful that he had signed the Reproductive Health Act, (another euphemistic term to describe baby murder) to allow abortion up to and even after birth, should a baby survive the abortion. Other states are now following New York’s lead once again. The Governor said he was doing nothing more than codifying Roe v Wade. This however is untrue, Roe only allowed abortion up to viability of the gestating child…24 to 28 weeks of pregnancy. Yet, nothing in Roe stops the states from killing babies after viability and up to birth.
The New York bill is also part of a broader trend of left-wing states codifying a “right” to abortion in anticipation of a future Supreme Court ruling that could reverse Roe, restoring states’ ability to ban abortion themselves and automatically banning it in the handful of states with pre-Roe bans still on the books as we have in Tennessee.
Prior to Roe, only 20 states allowed abortion and 30 disallowed it. It was strictly a state issue, and should have remained as such, because “abortion” is outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government over the country at large. Had it remained a state issue, many more Americans would be alive today.
Abortion Mills
Many abortion clinics do not even meet basic building codes for emergency access. Jill Stanek took the following pictures of a Birmingham abortion mill who had two botched abortions in one day.
The abortion industry routinely offers women grisly and unsanitary facilities. Deplorable conditions exist because of a lack of state or county inspections. The Kermit Gosnell abortion mill was just one of thousands who are never inspected and were filthy.
Abortion is far more dangerous to the woman’s health than carrying the baby to birth. We don’t know how many women are dying from abortions because the numbers are not being kept. Neither do we have the numbers of women who have committed suicide because they murdered their own babies. The CDC even says that only 45 of the 50 states in the United States actually keep abortion records. We really don’t know how many abortions are being done in the United States and we know even less about the complications and deaths.
Ultrasounds
Many of the heartbeat bills are written requiring abortion providers to listen for a heartbeat, but not all specify ultrasounds. Since the mid-1990s, several states have moved to make ultrasound a requirement prior to abortion, and I’m hoping more will do the same.
Qualified ultrasound providers can easily find a baby’s heartbeat after only a few weeks of gestation. Save the Storks has built 40+ Stork Bus mobile medical units to help mothers make the choice to give life to 4,000+ babies. Save the Storks partners with local pregnancy resource centers to inform an expecting mother of all of her options so that she can make the best choice for herself and give life to her baby.
They save four out of five babies whose mothers board the Stork Bus for an ultrasound. Strong laws for ultrasound before abortion could save many more babies.
Fourteen states require verbal counseling or written materials to include information on accessing ultrasound services. Twenty-six states regulate the provision of ultrasound by abortion providers. Three of those states, Louisiana, Texas, and Wisconsin—require the abortion provider to display and describe the ultrasound image. Guttmacher.org, a pro-abortion website, lists the state laws and policies and requirements for ultrasound.
States have passed several laws inhibiting abortions… waiting periods, restrictions on health insurance coverage, bans after 20 weeks of pregnancy because of infant pain, requirements that clinics meet ambulatory surgical center standards or requirements that abortion doctors have hospital admitting privileges and regulations for clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center standards, ultrasounds and now the heartbeat bills. If you’ve never watched Silent Scream about an abortion on a twelve-week-old unborn baby, the short movie proves there is extreme pain for these little ones.
Heartbeat Bills
Do I trust abortion providers to tell a pregnant woman her child has a heartbeat? I don’t, but new laws and regulations can actually save more babies. The heartbeat bills have nearly all been challenged by federal courts, but states need to keep passing them. And here’s why…
I asked three attorneys to explain to me the purpose of pushing the heartbeat bills when they are consistently are struck down. Two of those attorneys spoke in legal terms that still didn’t make it clear as to why the politics of these bills are so important. Finally, I asked another attorney to please explain it to me in layman’s terms. The heartbeat bills have to do with the strategy of positioning an issue so that the US Supreme Court will review it.
My friend explained the structure of the federal court system, and stripped it down to the essentials we need to know regarding the necessity of pushing for more heartbeat bills to be passed in state legislatures and signed by the Governors.
1. There are about 93 federal district courts throughout the Country. Most lawsuits filed in federal court are initially filed in a federal district court.
In every lawsuit [which isn’t settled] one side loses. The side which loses generally has the right to appeal his cases. His appeal is filed in one of
2. the 13 US Circuit Courts of Appeal [there are some additional “specialty” Circuit Courts which aren’t relevant to this issue]. One side will lose in the appellate court. But not every party who loses in one of the US Circuit Court of Appeals has the right to appeal to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court couldn’t possibly hear all of the cases which are heard by all of the 13 US Circuit Courts of Appeal!
3. There are “filters” by means of which the US Supreme Court decides which cases from the 13 Circuit Courts of Appeal they will hear. One of the best ways to get the US Supreme Court to review an issue is to show the US Supreme Court that there is a “conflict among the Circuits”: So if you can show the US Supreme Court that so and so Circuits Courts have ruled this way – but such and such Circuit Court ruled the opposite way, you are showing a “conflict” among the Circuits and your chances of getting the US Supreme Court to review the issue skyrocket.
Ultimately, we want a lot of states to file heartbeat bills knowing that they will all get sued and that most of the Circuit Courts of Appeal will rule in favor of the baby killers. However, if the pro-life people can get just one Circuit to rule in favor of LIFE; then, they can show “conflict jurisdiction” to the US Supreme Court and perhaps they will overturn Roe v. Wade.
My attorney friend explained, “It’s a classic strategy – though I personally opt for the nullification remedy. Still, there is no reason both remedies couldn’t be used – and the US Supreme Court might be more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade if some States have already manned up and nullified Roe v. Wade. State heartbeat bills are fully constitutional – this is one of the issues reserved to the States or The People.”
Conclusion
There you have it. We need one challenged state heartbeat bill where a Circuit Court of Appeals rules for the babies. Thus, we must urge the state legislators to write superb heartbeat bills, pass them in both houses of the legislature, and have them signed by the Governor. Getting a case to the Supreme Court can take three to five years. This gives our President time to possibly fill the court with another pro-life justice should either Justices Ginsburg or Breyer leave the court. Amy Coney Barrett is a great pro-life choice.
The president denies it. His enemies can’t prove it. And even his critics say it never happened. So why are Democrats still beating the Russian collusion drum?
It’s certainly not because Americans are pushing the issue, polling shows. In a new Rasmussen survey, most of the country seems ready to move on if the Robert Mueller probe doesn’t prove the Left’s case. A majority of voters think that if the special counsel doesn’t find any evidence, Democrats should “let it go.” If the report isn’t incriminating, only 29 percent of voters think congressional Democrats “should do their own investigation” to see if the Russian government helped Donald Trump win the presidency. Sixty-four percent said the House Majority should turn their attention to other things. After more than two years of non-stop investigations, the American people agree: enough is enough.
Good luck persuading the House Judiciary Committee of that, Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told me on Monday’s “Washington Watch.” Now that the Democrats are in control, they’re “going to pursue this bogus, ridiculous obstruction of justice.” “I’m surprised that’s where [Chairman] Jerry [Nadler] (D-N.Y.) is choosing to go, because [the case] is so weak… It is just so ludicrous, but now, I can understand when your number one goal is political, and it is not the good of the country, then you’re seeing after [Michael] Cohen’s testimony, there really is nothing to this Russian allegation involving Donald Trump. He never conspired, he never colluded.”
Now, the Left is saying that Americans need a wider net than Mueller. But as Louie told our listeners, there’s no such thing! This probe had an unlimited bank account, a host of attorneys, and “the most far-ranging jurisdiction that’s every been given to a special counsel,” and still it’s clear that there’s nothing to this allegation. So, the Democrats have to fall back to this wild goose chase of obstruction, even though it’s the weakest and most disprovable charge.
“They’re going to keep digging until they find something — anything! Because their whole reputation — what’s left of it — of the Democratic party is replying on what they’ve convinced the rest of the country [which is] that there was Russian collusion.” And since there’s no evidence of that, “they’ve got to come up with something — and that’s what Nadler is trying to do… He’s trying to find something to hang their hat on, and they know that so far, nothing has come out that would be a basis for impeaching the president.”
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with images and podcast is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/potus-e1551919848903.jpg369640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-03-06 19:51:002019-03-07 09:34:52House Jumps to the Wrong Collusion
There is growing concern that Silicon Valley is using their platforms to attack the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Daily Signal is a July, 2018 column titled “The Bias Problem Plaguing America’s Social Media Platforms” notes:
Facebook’s new algorithm for what users see on their timeline has disproportionately harmed conservative publishers. They’re getting fewer readers while their liberal counterparts haven’t been impacted to the same degree.
Recently, Google’s employees easily convinced the company’s management to cut ties to contracts with the military.
And Google has long faced criticism from fact-checkers over manipulating search results to slight conservatives. Google also has deleted or blocked references to Jesus, Chick-fil-A, and the Catholic religion. When will it stop?
It hasn’t stopped it has gotten worse!
TrumpTown.com founders sent the following in an email to its growing membership:
More anti-conservative actions from Silicon Valley
Dear TrumpTown Patriots,
One of our primary goals for TrumpTown was to launch our official iOS app. Early on, we were blessed to find a pro-Trump, conservative developer to make that happen. The TrumpTown iOS app was also the most requested feature from our users, by far.
On February 6th, after our developer put the finishing touches on the app, we submitted it to the Apple app store for review. According to Apple’s own website, a vast majority (90%) of apps are reviewed within 72 hours at the latest.
That certainly wasn’t the case for us. After the first week went by, we knew something didn’t seem right. After 4 agonizing weeks of the app being “in review,” we received an email today from the Apple review team that the TrumpTown Social Network app was officially “rejected.”
The reason given by Apple is vague and confusing at best:
“Your app includes content that many users would find objectionable and offensive. Specifically, some posts include content which contains an excessive amount of violence or gore.”
They go on to say that we can resubmit the app, but only if we “remove all potentially objectionable content from your app.” Yet, they provide zero guidelines as to what qualifies as “potentially objectionable.”
But listen, we’re not stupid. We can read between the lines.
In reality, it seems as if Apple found a vague and ridiculous way to keep TrumpTown from growing — especially as we head into another Trump campaign year. Pretty darn convenient, right?
And here’s what’s crazy about all this:
At any given time on Twitter, there are thousands (if not more) of pornographic and violent images being posted. Yet, they have an app.
People have live streamed suicides and other violent acts on Facebook, on multiple occasions. There are also a myriad of inappropriate pages and groups, including sexually explicit, violence, pro-terrorism, etc. Yet, they still have an app.
The same can be said for Google — which features the largest collection of sexual, violent and otherwise inappropriate images in the world, but they still have an app.
The list goes on and on. So, it’s crystal clear that we’ve been targeted because we’re a pro-Trump platform. Without question.
We started TrumpTown to get away from the anti-conservative censorship thrust upon us by the other networks, only to find the exact same treatment from Apple.
Make no mistake — the liberal, anti-Trump tech bastion we know as Silicon Valley is doing everything they can to silence our conservative voices. A TrumpTown iOS app would have changed the game for us and our users, and they apparently nuked us because they knew that.
Do you think they would have rejected a pro-Democrat social network? Absolutely not.
In summary, we wanted to share this news with you so that you know we’ve been working hard to give you what you want, but this is out of our control.
While we won’t have an iOS app, we’ll remain online and do our best to keep our community growing, as it’s more important now than ever before.
God Bless all of our users and thank you for your support, as always.
We have seen American corporations support the Nazi party to enforce tyranny. Then it was Nazi Germany, today it is the new American Socialists. Same objectives same socialist ideology.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with the permission of TrumpTown.com.
The Daily Signal was at all three days of the Conservative Political Action Conference, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington, and we’ve rounded up some of the highlights of our coverage.
Vice President Mike Pence Speaks Out Against the ‘Culture of Death’
“Life is winning in America. For all the progress we’re making, tragically, at the very moment more Americans are embracing the right to life, leading members of the Democratic Party are embracing a radical agenda of abortion on demand,” Pence said Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Pence called President Donald Trump the “most pro-life president in history,” noting that Trump revoked U.S. tax dollars from funding abortions abroad and signed legislation allowing states to defund Planned Parenthood.
“Democrats are standing for late-term abortion, infanticide, and a culture of death,” Pence said. “I promise you, this president, this party, and this movement will always stand for the unborn and stand for the inalienable right to life.”
Pence also said the people of Venezuela are embracing freedom against the embattled socialist regime of dictator Nicolas Maduro.
“Freedom is more generous, more helpful, and more humane than any other social or economic model ever attempted because it is the only philosophy that respects the dignity and worth of every single life and sees every man, woman, and child as made in the image of God,” Pence said.
2. Lindsey Graham Praises Trump for Kavanaugh Nomination
“I want to thank the president for nominating Brett,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said at CPAC. “He did something not everyone does. He had somebody’s back when it really mattered. There were a bunch of people saying we need to move on, and the president said, ‘No, thank you.’ That’s truly called draining the swamp.”
Graham asked the CPAC audience to imagine what would have happened if Democrats had been able to block Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Qualified prospective nominees would be reluctant to step forward if the tactics employed against Kavanaugh had prevailed, he said.
3. Parkland Student: ‘Government Failed at All Levels’
Kyle Kashuv, now director of high school outreach for Turning Point USA, a nonprofit youth organization, was a junior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where a gunman opened fire Feb. 14, 2018, killing 14 students and three staff members. Seventeen others were wounded.
“What happened at Parkland wasn’t a gun issue,” Kashuv said during a session on gun control at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Kashuv, 17, pointed to statistics that show crime rates have declined as gun ownership has gone up.
He also expressed frustration that law enforcement officials received multiple reports about earlier behavior by the young man responsible for the shooting, but did nothing.
“Government failed at all levels,” Kashuv said. “Every single level of government knew this could happen. I’m targeting individuals who allowed this to happen. A gun is an inanimate object without someone pulling the trigger.”
4. Cabinet Secretaries Call for Senate to Confirm More Nominees
“One thing that has slowed us up a little bit is getting the nominations [through the Senate],” Energy Secretary Rick Perry said at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “Our friends on the Democratic side have not been quite as helpful as we’d like for them to be from the standpoint of getting nominations through.”
Perry said seats on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates the energy industry and approved projects, should be filled.
FERC still has a couple of openings [and it] could be really important to get those done,” Perry said. “Billions of dollars in projects are going to get approved at FERC … that will allow our natural resources to be moved all around the world.”
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao stressed that this isn’t the fault of the Senate majority leader—her husband, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
“It’s not the Senate majority leader’s fault. I want to make that very clear. It’s not his fault,” Chao said. “It is the deliberate policy of the Senate minority leader [Chuck Schumer] to slow up the nominations of this administration by invoking cloture at every single step of the nominations process on the floor.”
5. Activist Assaulted at UC Berkeley Describes What Happened
In an exclusive interview with The Daily Signal podcast, Hayden Williams, who was attacked in February when recruiting students for a conservative group at University of California, Berkeley recounted what occurred:
As soon as I pulled out my phone, one of them said, ‘You guys are promoting violence,’ and then out of nowhere my phone gets smacked out of my hand. I go to pick it up off the ground and then the table gets flipped over and I turn around and this guy is just looking at me with flames in his eyes and he starts telling me, ‘Get out of my face, get that camera out of my face,’ and he starts pushing me and punching at me. It was just a really scary situation.
I’ve got most of it on film but he swatted my phone down about three times in total and the third time he got it I think the video stopped for whatever reason and he took my phone from me.
Luckily there was a third-person angle, some student who was walking by and realized what happened, basically, just took it upon himself to record.
So we have this angle, and if you actually look closely at the video, you can see my phone in this guy’s right hand when he punches me and knocks my hat off my head and then it looks like I’m tussling for his sweater or something, but really I’m just trying to retrieve my phone from him. Fortunately, he drops it and it lands between my legs and I go to pick it up and he kind of walks away, but he’s still yelling.
I look down at my phone and I realize that he was coming back and I didn’t know if it was still recording or not, my phone. He just gets in my face and starts yelling and I’m like, ‘Oh, wow, this is a really tense situation.’ And I look down at my phone again after he’s done yelling and right then is when he just throws the hardest punch I’ve ever taken in my life.
The really disturbing part though was the people around us that were egging him on. … Some guy was saying, ‘I’m on your side, you’re winning this fight.’ It was just really demented. I don’t care who you are, what you believe, if I see you in a distressed situation like that and you’re being attacked, I’m going to do everything I can to help you out. I wouldn’t even think about mocking you.
Zachary Greenberg was arrested and charged Friday for allegedly attacking Williams.
6. Van Jones Defends Working With Conservatives on Criminal Justice Reform
Van Jones, a former Obama administration official and leading commentator on the left, responded Friday to liberal critics who call him a “sellout” for agreeing to talk about prison reform at a major gathering of conservatives.
“If you’re on Twitter calling me a sellout for working with Trump on criminal justice reform, here is what I know about you: If you’re on Twitter, you’re not in a federal prison because they don’t have Twitter in federal prison,” Jones said.
“I don’t have to listen to you. I care about the people that are locked up. That’s what I care about,” Jones said, prompting applause from the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
“There are common ground issues where we do agree and we won’t work together on those all too often, and that has got to stop in America,” Jones said.
7. Sen. Ted Cruz Laments Republicans Didn’t Fund Wall Earlier
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Friday that he urged the Trump administration and his fellow Senate Republicans to make a strong push for the border wall while the GOP still controlled both chambers of Congress.
“What I urged my colleagues, and I urged the president and I urged the vice president, and I urged the administration: Let’s take up a budget reconciliation and let’s build the wall,” Cruz said at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “Let’s fund the wall. Let’s get it done.”
Cruz recalled telling colleagues this during an August presentation, which he recalled was 183 days before the midterm elections, when Republicans lost their House majority.
Cruz asserted that the November elections would have turned out differently had his colleagues listened:
I want you just to imagine, if they had taken that advice, if we had had that fight, and you had seen Elizabeth Warren screaming on the Senate floor to stop it, Bernie Sanders pulling what little hair he has out of his head, if in September or October, it [had] culminated in Republicans’ standing together [in] funding and building the wall, I’ll tell you, I don’t think we would have lost the House of Representatives.
8. Sen. James Lankford Says Too Few Americans Live Their Faith
Not living one’s faith can become a threat to religious liberty, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said while speaking on a panel Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
“One of the greatest challenges we have to religious liberty in this modern day is people that actually claim a faith and don’t live a faith,” Lankford said. “Having a culture that is a vibrant culture of faith for people that not only have a faith, but they choose to live it, matters in our culture.”
“There are a whole group of people that say you can have a faith—just leave it over there, just don’t bring it out of your house,” Lankford continued. “Or that have a faith designation or a denomination designation, and it’s almost like a membership in a club for them.”
Lankford went on to describe a modern-day struggle when faith is merely a label, like identifying with a political party.
“[It’s] not very meaningful in their life,” Lankford said. “It’s just—I have this particular label, whether it be Republican, Democrat, independent, conservative, liberal—they also had this label.”
Lankford later said: “I tell people all the time, if you have a faith, live it. For people that only practice their faith on weekends, I try to remind them: Things that you only do on weekends are called a hobby. That’s not a faith.”
9. Football Player Arrested for Shoplifting Advocates Criminal Justice Reform
Growing up in a small town outside of Jackson, Mississippi, NFL linebacker Demario Davis had never seen a two-parent household that put faith first. His mother had him when she was 16 years old and his father served in the Army. As a child, he was surrounded by drugs, crimes, and gangs.
His football career landed him a scholarship to Arkansas State University, where as a freshman, Davis got caught shoplifting at Walmart. His bond was set at $10,000—a sum he could never afford. Without paying it, he’d go to jail.
Davis’ football coach bailed him out.
“Because I was an athlete, I was able to not go to jail,” Davis told the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday.
It was then Davis said he realized how many people went to prison simply because they couldn’t pay the bill for bail. Had his coach not stepped in, he would have been one of them.
And going to prison, Davis said, “is almost like a death sentence.”
“One-third of the people who die in jail die in the first week. Also, three quarters of the deaths that happen in our country in jail are pre-trial inmates,” Davis said. “So it’s almost like a death sentence to send somebody to jail for that extended period of time without them being convicted.”
Davis returned to college with a renewed commitment to turn his life around. He met a Christian pastor at just the right time, who welcomed him into a relationship with Christ.
Now both an NFL football player and a criminal justice reform advocate, he says there should be no such thing as cash bail for nonviolent offenders, an effort he says the country spends $13 billion on as a result of incarcerating people before their trial.
“I think the momentum is starting to move in the right direction,” he said, pointing to cities such as the District of Columbia, which has eliminated the cash bail system.
10. Top Trump Economic Adviser Says We Should Put Socialism ‘on Trial’
Larry Kudlow, director of the president’s National Economic Council, called Thursday for putting socialism “on trial”—and convicting it.
“I want you, and everybody in this room and your friends and your neighbors, I want you to put socialism on trial, that’s what I’m asking,” Kudlow said, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
“I don’t want us to stand idly by,” he told the CPAC audience. “I don’t want to let this stuff fester. I want it challenged. I want it debated. I want it rebutted. I want to convict socialism.”
The top economic adviser to Trump noted the emergence of support for socialism among young voters and among Democrats in Congress.
He singled out the so-called Green New Deal, a proposal backed by congressional Democrats in the form of a resolution sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.
The Democrats’ plan would move the country away from fossil fuels while implementing a raft of liberal initiatives.
Kudlow called the proposal “central planning on a grand scale.”
11. Georgia Senator Celebrates Economic Boom Under Trump
A Georgia lawmaker and former business executive says the economy is seeing historic gains under Trump.
“This is the greatest economic turnaround in U.S. history, 5 million new jobs … we’re growing the economy,” Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., told the Thursday morning crowd of conservatives gatred at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
“The Obama administration … by the way, that was eight years [of] the lowest economic growth in U.S. history,” Perdue said.
He said that all Americans, not just some, are seeing the benefits of the Trump economy, especially since the president signed Republican lawmakers’ tax cuts into law on Dec. 22, 2017.
“We’ve got … the lowest unemployment in 50 years, [and the] lowest African-American, Asian, and Hispanic unemployment ever,” Perdue said. “So this is moving in the right direction.”
Perdue spoke during a discussion of the national debt moderated by Tim Chapman, executive director of Heritage Action for America, the lobbying arm of The Heritage Foundation.
“Taxes were not the government’s money in the first place,” Chapman said at one point. “It was the people’s money in the first place.”
12. Sen. Mike Lee Attacks Left’s Double Standard on Federalism
The government system known as federalism is what makes America great and guards against too much power in too few hands, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said in remarks Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
“What is making America great again, and what I believe will continue to make America great again, is our continued move in that direction toward rebalancing power, toward sending power back to where it belongs, which is with the people,” Lee said in his speech at CPAC.
Lee described federalism, with its emphasis on powers reserved to the states, as the key to freedom.
“By being free, we can unlock our unlimited human potential,” the Utah Republican said. “In order to do that, we have to make sure that the government’s not on our back.”
He said “the accumulation of power in the hands of the few” is the main threat to freedom.
Lee criticized the Obama administration and the Democratic Party for not remaining consistent in their demand for upholding federalism and the Constitution’s separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
“Where was their outrage over the violation of the Constitution and the separation of powers in the last decade?” Lee said, pointing to the national emergency that President Barack Obama declared in 2011 to take military action against Libya.
“Where was the concern about Congress’ Article 1 power over immigration and naturalization when in 2012 President Obama failed to get the legislation passed from Congress?” Lee added. “So he created a brand new immigration amnesty program out of thin air.”
The reference was to Obama’s unilateral order establishing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protects hundreds of thousands of those brought here illegally as children from deportation.
13. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Talks Failures of Socialism
Americans have to look no further than Venezuela to see the harms of socialism, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus told conservative activists gathered Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
“In Venezuela, they’re wondering if [they] have enough rabbits to feed their people,” Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said.
“We’ve got to get to a point where we celebrate capitalism and understand that in America it doesn’t matter who you are, where you came from, that the American dream is available for everybody,” Meadows said. “I’ve lived the American dream and, quite frankly, it is available to each and every person.”
14. Rep. Jim Jordan Shares Why He Thinks Washington Doesn’t Like Trump
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, told the CPAC crowd that politicians and bureaucrats don’t like Trump because he keeps his word.
“The bottom line is this town doesn’t like the president because this town is not used to people coming here and doing what they say,” Jordan said. “But the American people, you all appreciate that very fact. It’s something I appreciate … I [wish] every single American could have time to sit down and talk with the president.”
The Ohio lawmaker said Trump truly cares about American citizens and the future of the country.
“When you’re around the president, … you can sense the love he has for our troops, for our law enforcement, for the American [people],” Jordan said. “You can just feel it. And that’s what you want in a commander in chief.”
15. Sen. Joni Ernst Weighs in on North Korea
Does the slogan “America first” also mean “America alone?”
That was the question asked Friday during the Conservative Political Action Conference, following Trump’s second summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
“It’s a great opportunity on this panel to talk about a question that I have been asked a lot and that is: ‘America first’—does that mean America is alone?” Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, asked the CPAC audience.
“Absolutely not,” she answered. “It just simply means that America is leading from a position of strength.”
Moderator Katie Pavlich, editor of conservative news organization Townhall, asked what the next step might be with North Korea. In response, Ernst stressed the importance of America’s allies:
[North Korea has] other capabilities as well as chemical agents and biological agents. So all across the board, we have to make sure that we are safeguarding our own people, and yes, will that require our allies? Of course, it will. China we typically don’t think of as an ally, but in this case, they are very close to North Korea and we can use them strong-arming the North Koreans a little bit.
The senator from Iowa also agreed that Trump made the right decision in walking away from the terms Kim presented, stressing this would be a “long haul.”
16. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Shares How House Conservatives Are Trying to Protect Babies
In an exclusive interview with The Daily Signal podcast, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., discussed how House Republicans want to protect abortion survivors. Here’s an excerpt from their conversations:
Rachel del Guidice: I’d like to start off by getting your thoughts on the Senate’s recent failure to pass legislation to protect babies born alive after an abortion, and what the House is trying to do right now to pass a similar measure.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers: It’s just heartbreaking. I was disheartened by the vote, 44 senators that voted against legislation that would protect babies who were born alive, babies that had survived an abortion, were outside the womb, and yet they were not willing to bring in the insurer under law that they would bring in the doctor’s care.
In years past, this is passed with unanimous consent in the Senate. So it really exposed the extreme position that the left is taking right now, that Democrats are saying they reject legislation to protect babies born alive.
In the House, we are moving forward with a discharge petition. As you know, the Democrats have the majority in the House. One way that we can bring a bill to the floor is to demand a discharge petition.
You have to get 218 people to sign a discharge petition, and then you can bypass Speaker Nancy Pelosi and bring the bill directly to the floor. We’re working actively on that right now.
17. Gov. Scott Walker Shares an Insight From a Polish Immigrant
America’s greatness is built on freedom, former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Thursday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, and he had a story about an immigrant from Poland to illustrate that.
The Wisconsin Republican, who lost his bid for a third term as governor in November, regaled his audience with his account of an encounter with a supporter while eating with his family at a restaurant.
Walker said a woman approached to introduce herself and her daughter, whose birthday is coming up in March. A native of Poland, his supporter said she couldn’t understand the socialist faction in America.
“She talked a little bit about politics but, really gripping for today’s panel, she told me that she could not fathom … having come to America from an Eastern European country, she couldn’t fathom how anyone in this country would embrace socialism.”
As the woman spoke, Walker said, he saw a contrast between her home country and America:
She said she knew firsthand, as did her family, the failures of socialism. She said she knew about me from the past, from where she came from, [and] that she sees it just as we do today. … She came to America because she knew … freedom and prosperity did not come from the clumsy man in the government. They come from inspiring people to live their own lives and control their own destinies, and the dignity [of] work. That is what makes America great.
Rachel del Guidice is a reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.
President Trump is the fourth Commander-in-Chief to speak at CPAC. President Trump has addressed CPAC in 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017 and on March 2nd, 2019.
The American Conservative Union’s annual CPAC conference is a gathering of conservative activists from all across the country who meet to learn from each other, receive training in activism and campaign management, and hear from prominent conservative leaders. The conference began in 1974, when then-Governor Ronald Reagan described his vision of America as a “city upon a hill” for the first time.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/cpac-2019-donald-j.-trump-e1551613206153.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-03-03 06:43:112019-03-03 06:55:45President Donald J. Trump’s Speech at CPAC 2019
The Nancy Pelosi-led House of Representatives passed gun control measures H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 largely along party lines this week. However, a surprise procedural move by a Republican prior to the passage of H.R. 8 underscored the deep divisions in the Democratic Party along with the depth of the leadership’s deep disdain for gun owners. Moreover, the procedural wrangling around the bill further revealed that gun control efforts are not about confronting criminal conduct involving firearms, but rather about burdening gun owners.
In passing H.R. 8, the House voted to burden law-abiding gun owners by criminalizing the private transfer of firearms, even for temporary transfers and those among friends and extended family. The legislation targets the conduct of law-abiding gun owners, as Department of Justice polling of state and federal inmates shows that a plurality of criminals get their guns from the black market (not including private sales or gun shows).
Just prior to the vote on H.R. 8, Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) made a motion to recommit the legislation to amend it to include a provision that would require the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if an illegal alien attempts to purchase a firearm. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), it is already a felony for an illegal alien to possess or receive a firearm.
The vote and surrounding furor is instructive in understanding the legislative and political priorities of the Democratic House leadership.
This amendment was aimed at alerting law enforcement to felony conduct among a group championed by Democratic leadership rather than imposing new burdens on law-abiding gun owners, and as such Democratic House leadership vigorously opposed it. Attuned to the terrible optics of voting to attack law-abiding gun owners under the guise of controlling crime while simultaneously appearing to condone obvious felonious conduct brought to the direct attention of the federal government, 26 Democrats defied their leadership and voted in favor of the amendment. The amendment passed 220-209 and subsequently H.R. 8 passed 240-190.
According to reports, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was upset after the successful Republican procedure, targeting Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) with her ire. A reporter for The Hill described the scene, writing,
Wednesday’s drama played out as allied gun control activists from Moms Demand Action and the Brady Campaign sat above in the visitors’ galleries to watch the vote on one of their top priorities…
Pelosi approached Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) with the suggestion that the loss of 26 Democrats on what is typically an easy party-line vote was his responsibility. The confrontation, which took place before a group of members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), angered members of the group, of which Clyburn is a long-standing part.
A Washington Post reporter described Pelosi as “clearly frustrated” after failing to stop the ICE amendment. The paper also described the aftermath of the surprise vote by noting,
finger-pointing began almost immediately in a lengthy floor conference that included the top three Democratic leaders: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) and Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.).
The message sent by the combination of votes on H.R. 8., and segments of the Democratic caucus’s reaction to them, is clear. Democratic House Leadership believes it is more important to protect illegal aliens from the potential consequences of their felonious conduct than to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.
EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/aoc-e1551521239562.jpg360640NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2019-03-02 05:07:542019-03-02 05:09:41H.R. 8 Votes Reveal Dem House Leadership Values Illegal Aliens over Law-abiding Gun Owners
On February 26, 2019 the House of Representatives voted to block President Trump’s declaration of an emergency on the southern border. Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that the declaration was a violation of the Separation of Powers provisions of the Constitution.
It would appear that failures to secure our nation’s borders against the entry of massive numbers of illegal aliens is a clear violation of our Constitution.
Article IV, Section 4 states:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
Invasion is defined, part as:
An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity: an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain.
Furthermore, there would have been no need for any additional action by the administration if Congress had simply voted to fund the construction of a barrier to protect our nation from the illegal and un-inspected entry of people and contraband including narcotics and weapons, into the United States.
Congress failed to act responsibly and in accordance with the oaths of office that each member took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States by preventing invasion and domestic violence.
The media was quick to pick up on the Congressional response to the President’s action to fund the construction of a barrier to protect the vulnerable and highly porous U.S./Mexican border.
On February 26, 2019 Mass Live reported, “Mass. Democrats vote to block President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration.” Of course it was not just Massachusetts Democrats who voted against the declaration, but the comments in the article are worth considering.
Also on February 26th, the New York Times reported, “House Votes to Block Trump’s National Emergency Declaration About the Border.”
The action by Congress was not the only story making headlines, on February 26, 2019, however.
On that same day, that the Democrats and some Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against the Presidential declaration of emergency, ABC News reported, “26 years ago: 6 die in 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”
Finally, on February 26, 2019 the Washington Post reported, “Again, 9/11 first responders are pleading with Congress to fund their health care. Again, Jon Stewart is joining them.”
If we were to play the game of “connect the dots,” there is a common thread that connects these news reports: the issue of national security and the threats posed to America and Americans by terrorism and the consequences of failures of the immigration system that enabled foreign terrorists to enter the United States and carry out deadly terror attacks in 1993 and again in September 11, 2001.
While a barrier on the U.S./Mexican border wouldn’t, by itself solve the immigration crisis, it is a vital element of what must be a multi-pronged approach to secure our nation and protect our citizens.
After the attacks of 9/11, politicians from both parties demanded to know, “Why weren’t the dots connected?”
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001 the dots have been repeatedly connected, all too often in the wake of additional deadly terror attacks conducted by alien terrorists who easily gained entry into the United States by a variety of means.
Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the leader of the extremely violent Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel was just convicted of smuggling huge quantities of narcotics into the United States across the U.S./Mexican border. His organization is responsible for numerous murders and crimes of violence and corruption.
There have been a long list of Congressional hearings and official government reports that warn that among the numerous threats that the U.S. faces around the world, many of those threats emanate from Latin America.
On January 29, 2019 the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a hearing on Worldwide Threats that was predicated on a just-released paper, “World-Wide Threat Assessment,” that was issued by Daniel Coats, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community.
Here is an excerpt from that report:
Transnational Organized Crime
Global transnational criminal organizations and networks will threaten US interests and allies by trafficking drugs, exerting malign influence in weak states, threatening critical infrastructure, orchestrating human trafficking, and undermining legitimate economic activity.
Drug Trafficking
The foreign drug threat will pose continued risks to US public health and safety and will present a range of threats to US national security interests in the coming year. Violent Mexican traffickers, such as members of the Sinaloa Cartel and New Generation Jalisco Cartel, remain key to the movement of illicit drugs to the United States, including heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cannabis from Mexico, as well as cocaine from Colombia. Chinese synthetic drug suppliers dominate US-bound movements of so- called designer drugs, including synthetic marijuana, and probably ship the majority of US fentanyl, when adjusted for purity.
Approximately 70,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, a record high and a 10-percent increase from 2016, although the rate of growth probably slowed in early 2018, based on Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data.
Increased drug fatalities are largely a consequence of surging production of the synthetic opioid fentanyl; in 2017, more than 28,000 Americans died from synthetic opioids other than methadone, including illicitly manufactured fentanyl. The CDC reports synthetic opioid- related deaths rose 846 percent between 2010 and 2017, while DHS reports that US seizures of the drug increased 313 percent from 2016 to 2017.
Other Organized Crime Activities
Transnational criminal organizations and their affiliates are likely to expand their influence over some weak states, collaborate with US adversaries, and possibly threaten critical infrastructure.
Mexican criminals use bribery, intimidation, and violence to protect their drug trafficking, kidnapping-for-ransom, fuel-theft, gunrunning, extortion, and alien-smuggling enterprises.
Gangs based in Central America, such as MS-13, continue to direct some criminal activities beyond the region, including in the United States.
Transnational organized crime almost certainly will continue to inflict human suffering, deplete natural resources, degrade fragile ecosystems, drive migration, and drain income from the productive—and taxable—economy.
Human trafficking generates an estimated $150 billion annually for illicit actors and governments that engage in forced labor, according to the UN’s International Labor Organization.
The first paragraph of the preface of the official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel, will provide my “closing argument” against the Congressional betrayal that America is now witnessing:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
America has become dangerously polarized and immigration has become one of the most divisive issues.
In this climate of strident and aggressive confrontations, Americans are reluctant to engage in an open discussion. They have been intimidated by the radical left.
Who could ever forget Congresswoman Maxine Waters exhorting her followers to confront members of the Trump administration in public, or New York’s Governor Cuomo vilifying ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents, calling them thugs, inciting attacks on ICE agents.
Providing the truth about immigration would unite all Americans irrespective of their political orientations, in the understanding that border security and fair but effective immigration law enforcement are vital for national security, public safety, the livelihoods and wages of American workers, and a host of other issues.
The acrimonious arguments about immigration are not based on facts but on a fiction created by globalists whose tactics and use of deceptive language come directly from George Orwell’s “1984,” blurring the distinction between illegal aliens and lawful immigrants. This is damaging and insulting to lawful immigrants.
To provide a bit of clarity, the difference between an illegal alien and a lawful immigrant is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.
We often refer to America as a “nation of immigrants” and, in point of fact, last year the United States, even under the Trump administration that has been falsely accused of being “anti-immigrant,” admitted more than one million lawful immigrants — that is more than the rest of the world combined.
President Jimmy Carter cynically mandated that INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) employees substitute the bogus term “Undocumented Immigrants” for the term “Illegal Aliens.”
The term “Alien” is not a pejorative. It is a legal term that simply means, “Any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.”
Over time Carter’s deceptive language profoundly skewed public perceptions about immigration law enforcement.
The immigration system has become a highly efficient delivery system that delivers an unlimited supply of cheap and exploitable labor, an unlimited supply of foreign tourists, a nearly unlimited supply of foreign students, and a limitless supply of clients for immigration lawyers.
Consider that a massive amnesty program would not get the illegal aliens “out of the shadows” but into the waiting rooms of immigration law firms across America.
This why both the Democrats and the Republicans claim that since we cannot arrest and deport 11 million illegal aliens, ostensibly, the best “solution” is to provide them with lawful status.
This is a “bait and switch” tactic that takes immigration law enforcement off the table as a means of countering massive levels of immigration law violations, replacing it with a debate about whether to place these heretofore illegal aliens on pathways to citizenship or “only” provide illegal aliens with lawful status, permission to work, and the right to bring their families to the United States.
The Democrats have created Sanctuary Cities and called for dismantling of ICE. However, neither party has ever proposed hiring more ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents to address the immigration crisis. Currently there are about 6,000 ICE agents for the entire United States of America and more than half of ICE’s resources are focused on customs law enforcement and other law violations that have nothing to do with immigration.
Contrast that ridiculous number with the 45,000 employees of the TSA and the NYPD’s more than 37,000 police officers to protect New York City.
Mandatory E-Verify has been proposed but never approved. However, even with mandatory E-Verify, without ICE agents to conduct field investigation, unscrupulous employers could simply successfully hire their illegal workforce “off the books.”
As Americans we all share common goals. We must emphasize those common goals in discussions with our fellow Americans to combat the “divide and conquer” strategies of the globalists of both parties.
All Americans, irrespective of superficial factors such as race, religion, or ethnicity, want our military to keep our enemies as far from our shores as possible, our police to keep our communities safe, and our schools to effectively educate our children so that any child willing to study hard, work hard, and benefit from a bit of luck can write the next success story.
Many decent and compassionate Americans have been conned into believing that those who support secure borders and effective but fair immigration law enforcement are bigots, xenophobes, and racists when nothing could be further from the truth.
Our fellow Americans are not our adversaries but our allies, if we can win them over. The truth, the facts, laws, commonsense, and morality are all on our side.
Effective but fair immigration law enforcement is essential for all of those goals noted above.
Let the fact-based discussions begin!
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on NewsMax. It is republished with permission. The featured image is by Capri23auto on Pixabay.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/migration-3130767_640.jpg426640Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2019-02-28 16:52:282019-02-28 16:52:30The Truth About Immigration Can Unite All Americans
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.
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.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/josh-carter-1137080-unsplash-1.jpg36485472The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-02-28 06:58:422019-02-28 06:58:43Effort to Abandon Electoral College Gains Steam. Here’s What It Would Ruin for America.
Today Project Veritas released a new video documenting an investigation into Facebook, the largest social media company in the world. We introduce you to our Facebook insider, taking us behind the scenes of how the tech giant “demotes bad content”, “deboosts” conservative livestreams, classifies users, and triggers special features “close to elections.”
She provided Project Veritas with documents showing the bias evident in Facebook’s policies and actions, and how software engineers go about censoring voices on the right.
Here’s what the Facebook insider told Veritas:
“I think that the biggest thing, that getting the documents, getting video or still pictures of what was going on that shows that it is actually happening. This isn’t rumors, they talk about how right-wingers, they come up with all these crazy theories, and that’s not actually happening at these social media companies. They pooh pooh it. But here it is and it’s in your face.“
Facebook just released a comment in an article in The Verge in response to our latest investigation:
“We fired this person a year ago for breaking multiple employment policies and using her contractor role at Facebook to perform a stunt for Project Veritas. Unsurprisingly, the claims she is making validate her agenda and ignore the processes we have in place to ensure Facebook remains a platform to give people a voice, regardless of their political ideology.”
The article continues:
But Facebook says the tag has a more straightforward meaning. Starting in 2016, Facebook gave a significant News Feed boost to live videos as a way of encouraging users to broadcast live. Some pages tried to game that system by uploading pre-recorded videos through the live API, a violation of Facebook’s policies. If moderators found such a video, the “ActionDeboostLiveDistribution” tag would be applied to undo the News Feed boost otherwise applied to Live videos.
Here’s why this response to our investigation is so fascinating:
Facebook verifies the existence of “deboosting” conservative pages. Veritas reached out to one of the “deboosted” page owners, Steven Crowder, who told Veritas that Facebook’s claims were “ridiculous” and he does not upload pre-recorded videos through the live API.
Facebook does not deny censoring political comments for users.
Facebook does not deny the existence of their efforts to “Coordinate Trolling on Facebook.”
Facebook does not deny suppressing conservative pages.
The reality is, Facebook does not deny any of the documents of our investigation.
Instead, Facebook tries to discredit our insider. And The Verge entertains their attacks by promoting the manufactured comments of a corporate spokesman over the firsthand account of a brave whistle blower. It’s shameful.
You’ll be glad to know that Veritas will not back down. Together, you and I will continue to promote truth above all.
Stay tuned — I visited a few Facebook engineers who had a bit more to say.
The unveiling of the ballyhooed House of Representatives Medicare for All Act of 2019 bill will be met with chants of “equal healthcare for all!”
A key feature of the Medicare-for-All bills is the elimination of private health insurance that duplicates benefits offered by the government. Given the coercive nature of the existing Medicare program, we should be very concerned
Will we be somehow punished if we do not want to enroll in the new government program? Will there be an “individual mandate” penalty? Hopefully we’ll know before the bill is passed and we can find out what’s in it.
Patients and physicians should be free to pay for services and accept payment for services without being subject to penalties.
Medicare for All could be one of those concepts that “seemed like a good idea at the time” – just like diving head first off a cliff into an inviting but shallow pool of water.
The unveiling of the ballyhooed House of Representatives Medicare for All Act of 2019 bill will be met with chants of “equal healthcare for all!” While the country will be forced into a government-run program, the limousine liberals and champagne socialists will keep their array of medical care choices — whether on or off the record.
A key feature of the Medicare-for-All bills is the elimination of private health insurance that duplicates benefits offered by the government. Given the coercive nature of the existing Medicare program, we should be very concerned. Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) is mandatory for those eligible for Medicare who receive Social Security payments. If beneficiaries want to opt out of Part A, they must forfeit all of their Social Security payments — including paying back any Social Security benefits received up to the time Part A was declined. So a “beneficiary” is punished for saving federal dollars by declining to be on the government healthcare dole.
Enrollment in Medicare Part B (all physician and most outpatient services) is not mandatory but beneficiaries are financially coerced to enroll. The standard 2019 Part B premium amount is $135.50 per month, progressing to $460.50 based on income. But if a beneficiary doesn’t sign up for Part B when first eligible, he must pay a lifelong penalty of 10 percent for each full 12-month period that he could have had Part B. So if the beneficiary waited 3 years before signing up, he would pay a 30 percent higher premium throughout his lifetime.
Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) also imposes penalties on those who do not sign up when eligible unless they are in a Medicare Part C/Medicare Advantage HMO that covers drugs. The lifetime penalty is not trivial: one percent per month of the average monthly premium (currently about $33) for all the months they were not signed up.
Will we be somehow punished if we do not want to enroll in the new government program? Will there be an “individual mandate” penalty? Hopefully we’ll know before the bill is passed and we can find out what’s in it.
Another troubling aspect of a new government health program is the lack of an articulated budget or cost controls. According to the Medicare Board of Trustees 2018 Report, Medicare’s Part A trust fund will be depleted in 2026, three years earlier than the 2017 projection. Our 2017 healthcare costs were $3.5 trillion with $1.2 trillion attributed to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Apparently, financing would depend on monies earmarked for existing federal health programs, heavily taxing “the rich” and an unspecified increase in everyone’s taxes.
In addition to notoriously underestimated cost projections, Medicare underpayments to hospitals must be addressed. Hospitals receive 88 cents on the dollar from Medicare and 90 cents on the dollar from Medicaid for their expenditures on these patients, translating to reimbursements of $41.6 billion and $16.2 billion, respectively, below actual costs. Currently, hospitals make up the shortfall with higher payments from private insurance — which will no longer exist. Slashing oft maligned CEO salaries would be a drop in the bucket. Hospital workers — unionized or otherwise would not accept pay cuts.
So how will the inevitable funding shortfall be addressed? Private practitioners may be enticed by the promise of a steady stream of patients and income or strong-armed into submitting to lower reimbursement or by new licensing requirements. Of course, many of us remember being paid with IOUs from the California Medicaid program.
The promise of completely “free” medical care of every sort imaginable gives one pause. What happens when the money runs out? Because Medicare defines what care is reimbursable as “medically necessary,” the simple answer is to decrease covered services. But by then, the private health insurance industry would be decimated and our options limited.
Proponents of government-sponsored healthcare say people want it. But a 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that enthusiasm wanes when folks are told they would (1) lose their private insurance, and/or (2) pay more taxes and/or (3) have longer waits.
Direct pay independent physicians may be the salvation. Many Medicare patients are paying for direct primary care where a modest monthly fee direct to the physician guarantees full access to a physician, inexpensive medications and lab tests. Some specialists treating various chronic conditions such as diabetes also use this model to provide patients with timely individualized quality care.
The same people who clamor for a woman’s reproductive choice are strangely silent about everyone else’s freedom to choose the type of medical care they want. Patients and physicians should be free to pay for services and accept payment for services without being subject to penalties.
Medicare for All could be one of those concepts that “seemed like a good idea at the time” – just like diving head first off a cliff into an inviting but shallow pool of water.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/surgery-1807541_640.jpg422640Dr. Marilyn Singletonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Marilyn Singleton2019-02-26 12:06:222019-03-07 10:08:48Jumping Into Medicare For All With Eyes Wide Shut
