Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘General’ Category

I’m Back

I have been unavailable for the last two weeks. We had to move, and it took us by surprise. Now I’m back in business and will be publishing again, starting today.

Thank you for sticking with me,

Jerry Broussard of

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Twilight Zone

Democrats say all women need to be believed, All women? Keith Ellison accusers? Kathleen Willie, Paula Jones, and Juanita Broderick. #NotYou.

Democrats in the Twilight ZonePolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
See more Conservative Daily News cartoons here

A.F.Branco’s NEW Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here! 

take our poll – story continues below
  • Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician?

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons while A.F. Branco is on Vacation

New Study Shows Huge Cost of Sanders’ ‘Medicare for All’ Plan


Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” bill would cost a breathtaking $32.6 trillion over 10 years. (Photo: Janet Mayer / SplashNews/Newscom)

Socialism is expensive. In a new cost analysis, Charles Blahous, formerly a member of the Medicare board of trustees, concludes that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” bill (S. 1804) would cost a breathtaking $32.6 trillion over 10 years.

Given the growing commitment of House and Senate Democrats to this agenda, Blahous’ analysis is timely. His assessment of the federal government’s financial burden is also consistent with two other independent analyses.

Two years ago, the Urban Institute, a highly respected liberal think tank, estimated the total cost of the Sanders proposal at $32 trillion over 10 years, and professor Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, estimated the cost at $24.7 trillion.

In both cases, the analysts estimated that the level of taxpayer funding would be much higher than Sanders and his colleagues assumed.

Central Control

Co-sponsored by 16 leading Senate Democrats—including Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Cory Booker of New Jersey—the Sanders bill is the quintessential prescription for comprehensive government-controlled health care. In the House of Representatives, 123 Democratic members, more than half of the House Democratic Caucus, have co-sponsored similar legislation (H.R. 676).

The Sanders bill would create a national health insurance program; prohibit all Americans from having a private or employer-based health insurance plan; and abolish Medicare and Medicaid, absorbing their functions into the new national health insurance scheme.

The bill would mandate that doctors, hospitals, and medical professionals be paid Medicare payment rates, and would restrict private agreements between doctors and patients outside of the national system.

Bottom Line

The $32.6 trillion in additional federal spending (2022 to 2031) alone would equal 10.7 percent of the national economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, and would rise to 12.7 percent of GDP by 2031.

Blahous grants Sanders and his Senate co-sponsors the benefit of the doubt. His estimates assume that their bill would be successful in reducing revenues going to doctors, hospitals, and other medical professionals. He also assumes that their legislation would achieve its goals of reducing the cost of prescription drugs as well as administrative costs.

Blahous cautions, however, that drugs account for only 10 percent of total national health expenditures, and the bill’s intention to replace brand names with generics would take effect within a market where generics already make up 85 percent of drugs sold.

Uncertain Savings

Concerning administrative costs, the replacement of private insurance with a single government program would, in theory, secure major administrative cost reductions. For the sake of his estimates, Blahous projects a substantial 7 percent reduction in administrative costs.

There are, he warns, methodological problems in simple comparisons between Medicare and private-sector administrative costs. Moreover, the major government programs are plagued by persistent administrative failures that routinely jack up administrative costs. Medicare and Medicaid, for example, racked up an estimated $96 billion in improper payments in 2016 alone.

“Although government also polices fraud within its health insurance programs,” Blahous observes, “financial survival and business competitiveness are concerns from which government-provided insurance is generally exempt.”

Even assuming gains from reductions in administrative costs, drugs, and the big reductions in provider payments, other features of the legislation, such as the abolition of all cost-sharing, would drive the costs of the program upward.

Huge Taxes

Taxpayers would face enormous burdens, assuming Congress enacted and the president signed the Sanders bill. In his earlier analysis, Thorpe estimated that those taxes would amount to 20 percent of payroll, and roughly 70 percent of working households would pay more than they do today.

For his part, Blahous says that the costs would be such that “doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes going forward would be insufficient to fully finance the plan, even under the assumption that provider payment rates are reduced by over 40 percent for treatment of patients now covered by private insurance. Such an increase in the scope of the federal government operations would precipitate a correspondingly large increase in federal taxation or debt and would be unprecedented if undertaken as an enduring commitment.”

The promise of “something for nothing is always appealing, but it’s never cheap.

Commentary By

Portrait of Robert Moffit

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

In 2012 Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership – In 2018 ‘Security Forces’ Killed Hundreds

Reported by By: K. Walker | ClashDaily Associate

Editor | July 12, 2018

URL of the original posting site:

Gee, what will anti-gun activist, David Hogg, have to say about this?

Back in 2012, the Venezuelan government banned the private sale of firearms. The BBC reported that the move was to ‘improve security and cut crime’.

Here’s an awkward pair of headlines:

If that isn’t an argument for the Second Amendment, I don’t know what is.

Here’s a snippet from that 2012 BBC article:

Venezuela has brought a new gun law into effect which bans the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition.

Until now, anyone with a gun permit could buy arms from a private company.

Under the new law, only the army, police and certain groups like security companies will be able to buy arms from the state-owned weapons manufacturer and importer.

The ban is the latest attempt by the government to improve security and cut crime ahead of elections in October

Venezuela saw more than 18,000 murders last year and the capital, Caracas, is thought to be one of the most dangerous cities in Latin America.

The Hugo Chavez government even ran a gun amnesty program to allow those with illegal firearms to bring in the weapons without fear of reprisal.

And they were honest about their goal.

Hugo Chavez’s government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians, but his opponents say the police and government may not have the capacity or the will to enforce the new law.

Oh, and look what was slipped in there at the end of the article.

According to a recent United Nations report, South America, Central America and the Caribbean have the highest rates of murder by firearms in the world. (Emphasis added)
Source: BBC, June 2012

So, you’re saying that it’s not the United States with the highest per capita private firearm ownership in the world?

You mean to tell me that there are law-abiding gun owners out there? And that the single country in the world that ensures the most freedom doesn’t have the same homicide rate as some of those socialist sh!thole countries?


But that article was written waaaaay back in 2012.

Yo, Bernie, whatcha gotta say about that? Is Venezuela still the place to find the ‘American Dream’ that you posted on your website in 2011?

Well, let’s take a look at the headlines and see.

In April 2017, The Hill wrote this piece:

Looks like their plan to ‘reduce crime’ didn’t work. Unless it wasn’t about ‘reducing crime’ at all…

The article explains that despite the anti-gun law, homicide rates have soared.

Since April 2017, at least 163 pro-democracy protesters in Venezuela have been murdered by the Maduro dictatorship. Venezuela serves as an example of how gun prohibition can sometimes encourage gun crime.

In 2012, the communist-dominated Venezuelan National Assembly enacted the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law.” The bill’s stated objective was to “disarm all citizens.” The new law prohibited all gun sales, except to government entities. The penalty for illegally selling or carrying a firearm is a prison sentence of up to 20 years. Despite criticism from the democratic opposition, the bill went into effect in 2013.

Ostensibly, the motive for gun prohibition was Venezuela’s out of control violent crime. In 2015, Venezuela’s homicide rate was the world’s highest, with 27,875 Venezuelans murdered that year. More broadly, the Bolivarian Republic is the only South American nation with a homicide rate that has steadily risen since 1995. In the year prior to Maduro’s disarmament initiative, the Venezuelan capital of Caracas had a homicide rate of 122 per 100,000 inhabitants, nearly 20 times the global average of 6.2.

The high homicide rate is attributed to robberies, and 70 percent of all crime was due to armed robberies. The article goes on from there describing the rampant poverty in Venezuela — 87 percent of the country at the time. Desperate people are doing desperate things.

And the government took the only tool that individuals had to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property — assuming the government hadn’t already taken it without compensation.

The government then suppressed dissent.

As has been typical of tyrannies since the dawn of time, arms prohibition has aided in the suppression of dissent. Indeed, the Venezuelan Violent Observatory has reported a notable increase in state violence; lethal extrajudicial force is frequently used against criminals and against political dissidents. (Emphasis added)

The Maduro government confiscated firearms, destroyed some in a display of might, but some others, well… they ‘somehow’ slipped through the cracks.

In other words, the Maduro regime stripped Venezuelans of their right to self-defense and then transferred the confiscated firearms to its loyal thugs.

When the public is disarmed, ordinary criminals have greater impunity to rob and murder the innocent. So do criminal governments.
Source: The Hill

And now we’re up to speed to what’s happening in 2018. Back to the BBC’s new article.

Venezuelan security forces have carried out hundreds of arbitrary killings under the guise of fighting crime, the UN’s human rights body says.

In a report, it cites “shocking” accounts of young men being killed during operations, often in poor districts, over the past three years.

The UN’s human rights chief said no-one was being held to account, suggesting the rule of law was “virtually absent”.

Venezuela has in the past dismissed human rights allegations as “lies”.

The UN Human Rights Office alleges that extra-judicial killings were carried out by officers involved with the Operations for the Liberation of the People, ostensibly a crime-reduction initiative.

These officers may have killed more than 500 people since July 2015 as a way to showcase crime-reduction results, it says. They are alleged to have faked evidence to make it look as though the victims died in exchanges of fire.
Source: BBC, June 2018

This is why we need to protect the Second Amendment from the gun-grabbers.

We don’t want to become sitting ducks like the people of Venezuela.


Sorry folks. We have had no internet for over a week now. Finally back up and running. Hopefully there will be no more interruptions of service.

Thank you for your understanding.

Jerry Broussard of


Asserting Your Rights Produces a Masterpiece of Liberty While Ignorance Brings Slavery.

Authored by Jake MacAulay

Let’s do away with ignorance and learn our Bible and the Constitution, the true ingredients of the Masterpiece we call liberty.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

Let me quote Thomas Jefferson again…

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

When Jefferson, the principal author of the American Declaration of Independence, wrote these words, he was expressing a truth that relatively few Americans appreciate today. You see, an elected or appointed official at the local, state, or national level is required to take an oath to defend the Constitution of both his state and the United States. His job, then, is to follow his oath. Fair enough…but what about the rest of us?

What is our job?

As citizens of our State or of these States united, our job is to make sure that office-holders follow their oath so we can remain the “Land of the Free.”

As you probably know by now, my family’s mission is to make sure that the foundational reasons for American liberty are taught and known. Almost every American I encounter knows that America is different than the rest of the world. Americans generally love America because we have amazing liberties, prosperity, opportunity, peace, education, entertainment, access and infrastructure.  The troubling part about this love of country is that it is, for the most part, ignorant of any foundational reasons for the aforementioned.

Recently, my wife and I traveled to Colorado where I had the privilege to present to a number of individuals at the massive Colorado Home School Convention.  I later brought some of my students from the convention to visit a champion of God-given rights, Jack Phillips of the Masterpiece Cakeshop.

We should all be so grateful that this man didn’t just sit back and ignorantly enjoy his liberty in America. When discriminated against, Jack stood and endured the warfare to preserve liberty for his family and future generations. Jack understood that one does not have a right to divest themselves of God-given rights.  As a matter of fact, by asserting and victoriously defending his God-given right to practice his artistic expression within the moral boundaries of God’s Word, he helped defend all of our God-given rights.

But how can you or I do this if WE don’t know what the Constitution declares, or what it means? If we don’t know the rules, then how can we tell if they are being followed? If we don’t know these essential elements of citizenship – what used to be called “civics” – then it is difficult to object to direct affronts against our liberty. In short, if we are ignorant, it’s not long before we won’t be free.

Make no mistake; our American Liberty is simply the blessings of Almighty God and the bi-product of carefully following His Laws, which are the formula for a prosperous individual, family, Church, and Civil government. So let’s do away with ignorance and learn our Bible and the Constitution, the true ingredients of the Masterpiece we call liberty.

Schedule an event or learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: