More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Wednesday August 9, 2017
HTTP://TOWNHALL.COM

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/08/09/gore-vs-truth/#lGOGbmPsTt3sf0ih.99
Reported URL of the original posting site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/trump-administration-rewards-miami-reversing-sanctuary-policies/
Advertisement – story continues below
Miami Mayor Carlos Gimenez was notified by Alan Hanson, an acting assistant attorney general, that the DOJ found “no evidence that Miami Dade County is currently out of compliance,” clearing the way for the county to receive $481,347 in federal law enforcement funding in form of a Byrne JAG grant.
Miami was first classified as a sanctuary city by the Obama administration for its 2013 policy that authorized the county to begin denying “detainer” requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The policy provided that the county would only hold inmates sought for deportation if they faced severe charges and if the federal government would reimburse the county for extra detention time.
But shortly after President Donald Trump was inaugurated in January, Gimenez dropped the policy, ordering county jails to comply with ICE detentions requests.
The Miami-Dade Commission voted 9-3 in February in support of the mayor’s policy to honor ICE detention requests.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in July that the DOJ would impose new conditions on Byrne JAG grants, a leading source of federal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions.
“From now on, the Department will only provide Byrne JAG grants to cities and states that comply with federal law, allow federal immigration access to detention facilities, and provide 48 hours notice before they release an illegal alien wanted by federal authorities,” Sessions said in a statement announcing the new restrictions.
Miami-Dade’s decision to change its sanctuary status worked. The county received assurances from the DOJ Friday that it was in compliance and would receive a Byrne JAG Grant valued at $481,347, which will go towards enhancing the Miami Dade Police Department’s “intelligence gathering and police operations with investments in technology and specialized equipment,” according to Gimenez.
“This is good news,” said Gimenez’s communications director, Michael Hernández.
Hernández said the county is now requesting that the Trump administration remove Miami-Dade from the Obama administration’s original list of sanctuary cities.
“We’d like to have formal notification that we are no longer a sanctuary community,” Hernández said. “That request is being made.”
Miami-Dade is the only large jurisdiction in the country known to have complied with Trump’s request to crack down on its sanctuary city policy. Other sanctuary cities, such as Chicago, are calling foul at the Trump administration’s new restrictions surrounding Byrne JAG grants. Chicago was expected to receive $3.2 million in federal grants this year to purchase law enforcement equipment. But instead of complying, Chicago opted on Monday to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration to prevent it from enforcing the new policies.
“We are bringing this legal challenge because the rhetoric, the threats from this administration embodied in these new conditions imposed on unrelated public safety grants funds are breeding a culture and climate of fear,” said the senior legal adviser for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said Sunday it was “tragic” that Emanuel was more concerned about protecting illegal immigrants than he was by the high murder rate on the streets of Chicago.
“It’s especially tragic that the mayor is less concerned with that staggering figure than he is spending time and taxpayer money protecting criminal aliens and putting Chicago’s law enforcement at greater risk,” Flores said in a statement.
Chicago is the first city to challenge the Trump administration over its new restrictions surrounding Byrne JAG grants.
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/08/08/ms-bros/#K4murdempbptP9I8.99
Reported by Several of Lynch’s emails were included in 413 pages of DOJ documents provided to the conservative groups Judicial Watch and the American Center for Law and Justice. Both groups had filed lawsuits for records regarding Lynch’s controversial meeting with President Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport last June 27.
Using the pseudonym “Elizabeth Carlisle,” Lynch corresponded with DOJ press officials to hammer out talking points in response to media requests about the meeting. The tarmac encounter drew criticism from conservatives because Lynch was overseeing the federal investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email system.
The meeting was revealed not by Lynch, Clinton or the Justice Department, but by a reporter in Phoenix working based on a tip.
On June 28, a reporter with Phoenix’s ABC News affiliate contacted the Justice Department to inquire about the meeting. Internal DOJ emails show that the request touched off a mad-dash to develop talking points and statements to respond to the developing story.
Lynch, using the Elizabeth Carlisle account, which was hosted on the Justice Department’s system, was also involved in those discussions.
Lynch’s attorney, Robert Raben, confirmed to TheDC on Monday that Lynch emailed under that pseudonym. He pointed to an article published in The Hill last February in which the Justice Department acknowledged that Lynch was using an email handle that was not her given name.
“That address was and is known to the individuals who process [Freedom of Information Act] requests; the practice, similar to using initials or numbers in an email, helps guard against security risks and prevent inundation of mailboxes,” Raben said.
The aversion to an overflowing email inbox was one of the defenses offered by Holder after his use of a pseudonym was revealed last year. Holder used the alias “Lew Alcindor” — the birth name of NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar — as his email handle until he left DOJ in 2015.
The Carlisle emails were discovered over the weekend by followers of Reddit accounts that support President Trump. Some users developed the theory that Lynch used her grandmother’s name as a her pseudonym. Others concluded that Lynch broke the law by using a pseudonym, though it is not illegal for government officials to do so.
In one email, sent just minutes after ABC News inquired about the tarmac meeting, Melanie Newman, the director of DOJ’s public affairs office at the time, wrote an email to the Elizabeth Carlisle account that she addressed to “AG Lynch.”
Lynch responded later in the day to Newman and other DOJ officials.
“Thanks to all who worked on this,” reads the reply, which was ended with the initials “AG.”
Using the Carlisle account, Lynch was involved in several other email exchanges discussing drafts of talking points regarding her interaction with Clinton.
On June 29, Newman sent an email to the account — again with a greeting for “AG Lynch” — containing TV clips of news coverage of the airport encounter.
Lynch would go on to downplay her meeting with Clinton, though it had significant influence on the Clinton email probe.
Lynch claimed that the former president boarded her airplane uninvited and spoke for about 30 minutes with her and her husband. She said that the conversation centered on grandchildren and other mundane issues. She has insisted that the Hillary Clinton email investigation was not discussed.
Nevertheless, Lynch decided to relinquish control over the email investigation after acknowledging that the meeting could be interpreted in a negative light.
FBI Director James Comey stepped in to oversee the investigation, which came to an end on July 5 when he gave a press conference announcing that charges would not be filed against Clinton. Though Comey said that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the former secretary of state, he criticized her carelessness in using a private email account to send and receive classified information.
Other Obama administration officials have been caught using email aliases.
Former IRS official Lois Lerner, who targeted conservative non-profit groups seeking tax-exempt status, occasionally used the alias “Toby Miles” to send and receive work emails.
Lisa Jackson, the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, infamously used the alias “Richard Windsor” to conduct work business.
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/08/07/road-to-prosperity/#xi1sppXjUSuHIdJv.99
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/08/04/ew-that-smell/#H205Cs6REq3YAJhq.99
Reported By Reid Wilson – 08/03/17 03:49 PM EDT
West Virginia’s Democratic governor will flip to Republican Party
Reported URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/tolerant-left-threatening-bridal-shop-religious-beliefs/
W.W. Bridal in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania made headlines this week after refusing service to a lesbian couple looking for purchase a wedding gown, citing religious reasons. After the couple took to Twitter to complain about their experience, and to seek attention for their inconvenience, “social justice warriors” on the left took up arms against the shop.
“The police chief in Bloomsburg tells the Press Enterprise of Bloomsburg the owners of W. W. Bridal say they’ve been threatened after telling the couple to shop elsewhere on July 8.
“The lesbian couple took to social media to vent, and their story was widely shared.
“Police Chief Roger Van Loan says the alleged threats ranged from a prank moving van sent to the store to threats of bodily harm. Police are investigating.
“Shop co-owner Victoria Miller says they’re only accepting pre-arranged customers until they ‘feel it is safe’ to reopen.”
This incident once again illustrates the amoral and lopsided “social justice” parameters set forth by the left.
Where these SJW’s are encouraged to bully and attack those who’ve been accused of discrimination against certain demographics, they themselves are simply perpetuating prejudices by refusing to afford other groups the same respect or protection. For instance, social justice warriors are leading the charge to ban so-called “Islamophobia”, or the fear of radical Islamic terrorism, yet they refuse to protect traditional Christian views as it pertains to gay marriage.
The entire ethos of “social justice” is belied in its moniker. It is the idea that authority has failed us on issues of faith and love and that we must band together to create our own police force for these sacred and personal beliefs. “Social justice” is simply another tool that the liberals employ in order to keep conservatism from growing within our nation.
Furthermore, W.W. Bridal had previously made headlines by refusing to serve a lesbian couple all the way back in 2014, leading many to believe that this week’s incident was nothing more than a propagandist setup.
Andrew West is a Georgia-based political enthusiast and lover of liberty. When not writing, you can find Mr. West home brewing his own craft beer, perfecting his home-made hot sauce recipes, or playing guitar.
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/08/03/another-raw-deal/#xThaLB06rQhu6PyJ.99
Reported The administration has announced that it will block Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, which is a HUGE pool of money that goes to helping cities and states with their law enforcement issues.
However, many so-called “Sanctuary Cities” refuse to obey federal laws or to even work with federal law enforcement agencies when it comes to dealing with illegal alien criminals. This reticence to abide by federal law has led the Trump administration to remove millions in federal funds from these lawless sanctuary cities.
From the Center for Immigration Studies:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Tuesday that sanctuary
jurisdictions will lose access to certain federal law enforcement grants in 2017 if they prohibit officials from communicating with ICE, if they block ICE from interviewing jail inmates, or if they fail to notify ICE of the pending release of criminal aliens ICE is seeking to deport.
These particular grants, known as the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, are the largest source of federal criminal justice funds for state, local, and tribal authorities.
This move is helping fulfill one early promise of the Trump administration: to impose consequences on the most egregious of the more than 300 sanctuary jurisdictions.
It is significant because a large share of the funds awarded in this
program go to sanctuary jurisdictions.
For example, according to DOJ records, the four largest grants, and seven out of the top 10 recipients of the Byrne/JAG grants are sanctuaries. Under the new rules announced by Sessions, these four top grant-getters (New York City, Cook County, Ill., the City of Los Angeles, and Philadelphia) are likely to be disqualified from these grants in the future if they maintain their current policies toward ICE.
These cities received more than $10 million in grants in 2016.
You can see the list of Sanctuary Cities and the money they’ll be losing below.
| Awardee | Award Amount | Location |
| New York City Major’s Office of Criminal Justice | $4,298,245 | N.Y. |
| City of Chicago | $2,333,428 | Ill. |
| City of Los Angeles | $1,870,503 | Calif. |
| City of Philadelphia | $1,677,937 | Pa. |
| Clark County | $975,604 | Nev. |
| Milwaukee County | $937,932 | Wisc. |
| County of Alameda, CA | $876,345 | Calif. |
| City of Baltimore | $743,842 | Md. |
| City of Seattle | $673,166 | Wash. |
| County of San Bernandino | $626,025 | Calif. |
| Hennepin County | $564,510 | Minn. |
| City of San Diego | $546,793 | Calif. |
| City of Newark Police Department | $525,446 | N.J. |
| City and County of San Francisco | $522,943 | Calif. |
| City of Albuquerque | $479,125 | N.M. |
| City of Portland | $465,810 | Ore. |
| City of Boston | $447,390 | Mass. |
| City of Riverside | $429,942 | Calif. |
| City and County of Denver | $426,590 | Colo. |
| City of Stockton | $383,843 | Calif. |
| City of Orange | $377,708 | Calif. |
| Baltimore, County of | $336,110 | Md. |
| County of Sedwick | $331,032 | Kan. |
| Prince Georges County | $312,667 | Md. |
| Dekalb County | $306,768 | Ga. |
| City of Tacoma | $287,469 | Wash. |
| City of Fresno | $269,208 | Calif. |
| City of New Orleans | $265,832 | La. |
| City of Saint Paul | $260,540 | Minn. |
| City of Sacramento | $256,776 | Calif. |
| City of Colorado Springs | $255,100 | Colo. |
| Sacramento County | $241,650 | Calif. |
| City of Providence | $225,539 | R.I. |
| City of New Haven | $217,907 | Conn. |
| City of Hartford | $196,347 | Conn. |
| City of Long Beach | $196,217 | Calif. |
| City of Bridgeport | $195,781 | Conn. |
| Contra Costa County | $194,562 | Calif. |
| City of Aurora | $175,123 | Colo. |
| County of Kern | $168,552 | Calif. |
| County of Union | $167,034 | N.J. |
| County of Stanislaus | $165,937 | Calif. |
| Spokane County | $154,903 | Wash. |
| County of Delaware | $154,093 | Pa. |
| Montgomery County | $147,560 | Md. |
| City of Bakersfield | $145,769 | Calif. |
| City of North Las Vegas PD | $143,777 | Nev. |
| City of Vallejo | $136,511 | Calif. |
| City of Reno | $130,850 | Nev. |
| City of Syracuse | $117,888 | N.Y. |
| City of Oxnard | $112,635 | Calif. |
| Santa Barbara County | $108,100 | Calif. |
| Clayton County | $107,853 | Ga. |
| City of Salinas | $98,308 | Calif. |
| City of Pueblo | $95,787 | Colo. |
| City of Compton | $95,747 | Calif. |
| Clark County | $91,717 | Wash. |
| City of New Brunswick | $90,341 | N.J. |
| City of Lakewood | $87,988 | Colo. |
| City of Topeka | $85,769 | Kan. |
| Lane County | $84,217 | Ore. |
| County of Jackson | $76,389 | Calif. |
| City of Council Bluffs | $73,440 | Iowa |
| City of Salem | $69,968 | Ore. |
| City of Pomona Police Dept | $69,550 | Calif. |
| City of Lancaster | $68,883 | Calif. |
| City of Greeley | $65,164 | Colo. |
| City of Palmdale | $64,321 | Calif. |
| City of Gainesville | $63,771 | Fla. |
| City of Yakima | $63,434 | Wash. |
| City of Allentown | $62,429 | Pa. |
| Inglewood City | $61,413 | Calif. |
| City of Santa Cruz | $59,519 | Calif. |
| Chesterfield County | $55,163 | Va. |
| City of Pawtucket | $54,601 | R.I. |
| City of Oceanside | $53,730 | Calif. |
| City of Merced | $51,649 | Calif. |
| City of Fort Collins | $51,561 | Colo. |
| City of Redding | $50,688 | Calif. |
| Linn County | $50,045 | Iowa |
| City of Hawthorne | $50,021 | Calif. |
| City of Waterbury | $49,914 | Conn. |
| City of Boulder | $49,602 | Colo. |
| City of Santa Rosa | $48,367 | Calif. |
| Sonoma County | $48,287 | Calif. |
| City of Woonsocket | $47,961 | R.I. |
| Chula Vista City | $47,700 | Calif. |
| Adams County | $46,754 | Colo. |
| City of Escondido | $46,313 | Calif. |
| Municipality of Norristown | $46,294 | Pa. |
| County of Tulare | $46,020 | Calif. |
| City of Everett | $45,593 | Wash. |
| Arlington County | $44,203 | Va. |
| City of Erie | $43,588 | Pa. |
| City of Stamford | $43,468 | Conn. |
| City of Elk Grove | $42,765 | Calif. |
| City of Gallup | $42,240 | N.M. |
| Shasta County | $42,045 | Calif. |
| City of South Gate | $41,484 | Calif. |
| County of Merced | $41,458 | Calif. |
| City of Visalia | $40,764 | Calif. |
| County of Washington | $39,976 | Ore. |
| City of Bellingham | $39,398 | Wash. |
| City of New Britain | $39,287 | Conn. |
| Town of Hamden | $38,895 | Conn. |
| Kitsap County | $38,053 | Wash. |
| Incorporated Village of Hempstead | $37,982 | N.Y. |
| City of Hanford | $37,643 | Calif. |
| Yolo County | $37,455 | Calif. |
| City of New London | $36,107 | Conn. |
| City of Thornton | $34,968 | Colo. |
| Henderson Police Department | $34,400 | Nev. |
| City of Concord | $33,988 | Calif. |
| Hernando County | $33,767 | Fla. |
| Deschutes. County of | $33,730 | Ore. |
| City of Norwalk | $33,712 | Conn. |
| Tulare City | $33,694 | Calif. |
| Snohomish County | $33,664 | Wash. |
| City of Vista | $33,348 | Calif. |
| City of Farmington New Mexico | $33,277 | N.M. |
| West Haven City | $32,841 | Conn. |
| City of Cambridge | $32,576 | Mass. |
| City of Las Cruces | $31,665 | N.M. |
| City of Norwalk | $30,840 | Calif. |
| City of Roswell | $30,672 | N.M. |
| City of Huntington Park | $30,440 | Calif. |
| City of Turlock | $30,066 | Calif. |
| Madera County | $29,426 | Calif. |
| City of Central Falls | $28,961 | R.I. |
| City of El Cajon | $28,759 | Calif. |
| City of El Monte | $28,492 | Calif. |
| City of Grand Junction | $28,487 | Colo. |
| City of Iowa City | $28,453 | Iowa |
| City of Santa Monica | $28,199 | Calif. |
| City of Rancho Cordova | $28,012 | Calif. |
| City of Citrus Heights | $27,692 | Calif. |
| City of Cranston | $27,195 | R.I. |
| City of Westminster | $27,169 | Colo. |
| Valencia County | $26,889 | N.M. |
| City of Downey | $26,358 | Calif. |
| San Juan County | $26,237 | N.M. |
| Thurston County | $25,982 | Wash. |
| Clackamas County Juvenile Department | $25,771 | Ore. |
| City of Spokane Valley | $25,628 | Wash. |
| City of National City | $25,397 | Calif. |
| City of Meriden | $25,175 | Conn. |
| Dona Asta County | $24,904 | N.M. |
| City of Santa Clarita | $24,677 | Calif. |
| City of Chico | $24,570 | Calif. |
| City of Bremerton | $23,752 | Wash. |
| City of Bellflower | $23,370 | Calif. |
| County of San Mateo | $23,317 | Calif. |
| City of Lodi | $22,863 | Calif. |
| City of Hillsboro | $22,297 | Ore. |
| Town of East Hartford | $22,213 | Conn. |
| Placer County | $22,116 | Calif. |
| City of West Hollywood | $21,903 | Calif. |
| City of Gardena | $21,556 | Calif. |
| City of Delano | $21,289 | Calif. |
| San Luis Obispo County | $20,862 | Calif. |
| City of Bethlehem | $20,854 | Pa. |
| Mesa County | $20,546 | Colo. |
| County of Mendocino | $20,222 | Calif. |
| City of Watsonville | $20,115 | Calif. |
| City of Somerville | $20,004 | Mass. |
| City of Roseville | $19,928 | Calif. |
| City of Pico Rivera | $19,822 | Calif. |
| City of West Covina | $19,662 | Calif. |
| City of Santa Fe | $19,631 | N.M. |
| City of San Mateo | $19,475 | Calif. |
| City of Napa | $19,208 | Calif. |
| City of Whittier | $18,915 | Calif. |
| City of Paramount | $18,808 | Calif. |
| City of Commerce City | $18,766 | Colo. |
| City of Baldwin Park | $18,675 | Calif. |
| El Dorado County | $18,435 | Calif. |
| City of Carlsbad | $18,408 | Calif. |
| City of Clovis | $17,616 | N.M. |
| City of Grants Pass | $17,547 | Ore. |
| City of Arvada | $17,484 | Colo. |
| City of Lakewood | $17,447 | Calif. |
| City of Manteca | $17,421 | Calif. |
| City of Bell | $17,341 | Calif. |
| City of Beaverton | $17,239 | Ore. |
| City of Yuba City | $17,181 | Calif. |
| City of Olympia | $17,168 | Wash. |
| City of Daly City | $16,887 | Calif. |
| City of Rio Rancho | $16,871 | N.M. |
| City of Azusa | $16,834 | Calif. |
| Norwich City | $16,638 | Conn. |
| City of Loveland | $16,451 | Colo. |
| City of Clovis | $16,434 | Calif. |
| City of Longview | $16,389 | Wash. |
| City of La Mesa | $16,354 | Calif. |
| City of Everett | $16,288 | Mass. |
| City of DeKalb | $16,225 | Ill. |
| City of Glendale | $16,007 | Calif. |
| City of Danbury | $15,985 | Conn. |
| County of Lake | $15,980 | Calif. |
| City of Centennial Colorado | $15,668 | Colo. |
| County of Yuba | $15,553 | Calif. |
| City of Dinuba | $15,527 | Calif. |
| City of Burbank | $15,046 | Calif. |
| County of Nevada | $15,020 | Calif. |
| Douglas County Government | $14,813 | Colo. |
| City of Santa Clara | $14,806 | Calif. |
| City of Selma | $14,753 | Calif. |
| Imperial County | $14,726 | Calif. |
| City of Porterville | $14,726 | Calif. |
| City of Petaluma | $14,566 | Calif. |
| City of Atwater | $14,513 | Calif. |
| City of Gilroy | $14,299 | Calif. |
| City of Torrance | $14,193 | Calif. |
| Village of Freeport | $14,140 | N.Y. |
| Reedley Police Department | $14,113 | Calif. |
| Town of Manchester | $14,068 | Conn. |
| City of San Luis Obispo | $13,873 | Calif. |
| City of Pittsburg | $13,659 | Calif. |
| City of Sanger | $13,659 | Calif. |
| City of Culver City | $13,579 | Calif. |
| City of Redondo Beach | $13,552 | Calif. |
| City of Newton | $13,458 | Kan. |
| Tehama County District Attorney | $13,419 | Calif. |
| Eureka Police Department | $13,232 | Calif. |
| City of Arvin | $13,206 | Calif. |
| City of Hollister | $13,152 | Calif. |
| Township of Lakewood | $13,149 | N.J. |
| City of Lawndale | $12,966 | Calif. |
| City of Marysville | $12,956 | Wash. |
| City of Sunnyvale | $12,832 | Calif. |
| City of Alhambra | $12,805 | Calif. |
| City of East Providence | $12,785 | R.I. |
| City of El Centro | $12,725 | Calif. |
| City of Mountain View | $12,485 | Calif. |
| City of Ceres | $12,299 | Calif. |
| Brighton Police Department | $12,036 | Colo. |
| City of Redmond | $11,874 | Ore. |
| City of Coalinga | $11,738 | Calif. |
| City of Santee | $11,738 | Calif. |
| City of Rosemead | $11,712 | Calif. |
| Village of Los Lunas | $11,692 | N.M. |
| City of Pearland | $11,670 | Texas |
| City of Las Vegas | $11,537 | N.M. |
| City of Tracy | $11,365 | Calif. |
| City of Wheat Ridge | $11,288 | Colo. |
| City of Northglenn | $11,217 | Colo. |
| City of Puyallup | $11,115 | Wash. |
| City of Walla Walla | $11,115 | Wash. |
| City of Lemon Grove | $10,858 | Calif. |
| Town of Stratford | $10,715 | Conn. |
| City of Belen | $10,700 | N.M. |
| City of La Puente | $10,671 | Calif. |
| Covina Police Department | $10,645 | Calif. |
| City of Moses Lake | $10,619 | Wash. |
| City of Monterey | $10,351 | Calif. |
| City of Red Bluff | $10,324 | Calif. |
| City of Los Banos | $10,244 | Calif. |
| City of Encinitas | $10,164 | Calif. |
| City of Ridgecrest | $10,138 | Calif. |
| City of South Lake Tahoe | $10,031 | Calif. |
| Total | $32,737,204 |
Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Romulus Marketing. He’s also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/08/02/time-to-remember/#bbCiSyhVxpyyKWcu.99
More A.F. Branco cartoons at Constitution.com here.
A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!
Reported by Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / July 31, 2017URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/31/how-trump-could-force-congress-and-its-staff-to-live-under-obamacare/

President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting Monday with, from left, Defense Secretary James Mattis, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. (Photo: Mike Theiler/UPI/Newscom)
“I think he should just do it.”—@Heritage’s Robert Moffit
“This is one more instance of Congress passing an unpleasant, expensive, onerous law on citizens and then conferring a valuable benefit on itself,” Joe Morris, former general counsel for the Office of Personnel Management, told The Daily Signal.
Over the weekend, Trump tweeted that he could take away the exemption, granted by the Obama administration’s Office of Personnel Management, to prod Congress toward agreement on getting rid of Obamacare. The provision provides what critics say is tantamount to an unconstitutional waiver for members of Congress and their staff from rules mandated by the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. To exempt themselves, the 535 lawmakers and their more than 13,000 staffers are treated as if they were a small business employing fewer than 50 workers.
The exemption policy was created in an OPM directive under President Barack Obama, and could easily be overturned by Trump, said Morris, who worked at the agency during the Reagan administration.

Morris said that applying Obamacare rules to Congress and its staff—as the language of the 2010 law
actually requires—could prompt Republican lawmakers to act on their promise to repeal and replace the law. They failed to reach 50 votes to do so in the Senate last week, when three Republicans joined Democrats to scuttle a “skinny repeal” proposal that would have set up a conference with the House.
“Congress could feel the pain of most Americans,” Morris said. “It is worth trying. If members of Congress are aggrieved and their staffs are aggrieved, they might be more likely to take action.”
Not a single Republican voted to pass Obamacare. Under a subsection of the Affordable Care Act, Democrats voted Congress out of its own employer-sponsored Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The provision required members and House and Senate staff to enroll in the new health insurance exchanges created for other Americans under the law.
Obamacare subsidies are capped so that no one with income higher than $48,000 gets a subsidy. Members of Congress earn $174,00 annually.
On Aug. 7, 2013, the OPM—which administers the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program—determined that members of Congress and staff still could enroll in the program through the SHOP Exchange, a health insurance exchange set up to provide special insurance subsidies for small businesses in Washington, D.C., with fewer than 50 employees.
Morris co-authored a report for The Heritage Foundation, before the OPM finalized the change, that concluded the Obama administration had no statutory authority to make the rule.
In February 2015, then-Sen. David Vitter, R-La., a member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, unsuccessfully sought documents pertaining to Congress and the exemption.
But documents that later surfaced reportedly showed administrators asserted Congress had a combined total of 45 employees. Congress itself has 535 members.
As of 2014, there were 4,180 Senate staffers and 9,175 House staffers, according to reports by the Congressional Research Service.
Though controversial, the move survived a legal challenge by Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group that sued the District of Columbia’s small business insurance exchange on behalf of a city resident. Superior Court Judge Herbert B. Dixon Jr., however, determined the OPM’s action was legal.
“If you are talking about draining the swamp, this would be a direct assault on the swamp creatures in eliminating what is clearly an illegal insurance subsidy,” Moffit told The Daily Signal, adding:

Published by ClashDaily.com | August 1, 2017URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2017/08/sheriff-joe-arpaio-found-guilty-contempt-reason-pure-american-defiance/
This verdict will be appealed, of course.
The illegal immigrants who were impacted by his policy, have ironically said they will feel vindicated when they see this Sheriff’s mugshot. People who are ILLEGAL aliens are insisting that the court order should be OBEYED by the Sheriff. That’s pretty rich. These illegal aliens refuse to comply with our laws, and that’s supposed to be ‘perfectly fine’. But somehow, THEY want the law to intervene against the Sheriff, for having applied the law to illegal aliens.
Dizzy yet?
Former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio was found guilty on Monday of criminal contempt for defying a judge’s court order to stop traffic patrols that targeted immigrants.
Arpaio, 85, was charged with misdemeanor contempt of court, declaring that he willfully defied a judge’s order in 2011 and prolonged his patrols for another 17 months, Fox 10 Phoenix reported.
…Arpaio’s lawyers said they would appeal the verdict, contending their client’s legal fate should have been decided by a jury, not a judge. They also said U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton violated Arpaio’s rights by not reading the decision in court.
“Her verdict is contrary to what every single witness testified in the case,” his lawyers said in a statement. “Arpaio believes that a jury would have found in his favor, and that it will.” –FOX
You may remember when this same Sheriff fought against Obama’s Executive Orders concerning Immigration. We love that he was committed to enforcing the law, despite how our prissy 44th President overreached his authority.
The attorney representing Maricopa County’s controversy-prone Sheriff Joe Arpaio urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to reverse a district judge’s December ruling and allow the case to proceed. Arpaio, known for his feisty, public battle against illegal immigration, is looking to reverse President Barack Obama’s executive orders allowing illegal immigrants who came as children to the U.S. or undocumented parents of legal residents to stay in the U.S.
Attorney Larry Klayman urged the three-judge panel Monday not to consider the case as a political dispute, but rather one about “whether the law is being enforced or not” — which both conservatives and liberal should support, he said. —CNN
Our Constitution and Rule of Law have to mean something, or they become useless for protecting our citizens.
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/08/01/murkowski-mccain-and-collins-wacko-birds/#hpl4RJq4FeHESSz1.99
Commentary by Rush Limbaugh | July 31, 2017URL of the original posting site: https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/07/31/the-republican-obamacare-betrayal/
So here comes the failure by the Republicans to repeal and replace Obamacare. Fat repeal, skinny repeal, straight repeal, repeal and replace, replace but don’t repeal, whatever it is, up in flames, up in smoke, and wouldn’t you know, Reuters has gone out and surveyed people in New York and Boston and LA, wherever, and found people that think Congress should move on.
“A majority of Americans are ready to move on from healthcare reform at this point after the U.S. Senate’s effort to dismantle Obamacare failed on Friday, according to an exclusive Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Saturday. Nearly two-thirds of the country wants to either keep or modify the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, and a majority of Americans want Congress to turn its attention to other priorities, the survey found.”
Now, here’s the next paragraph in the Reuters story: “Republicans have vowed to dismantle the Affordable Care Act since Democratic President Barack Obama signed it into law in 2010, and it appeared they finally had their chance when Republican President Donald Trump took office in January. But the law, which helped 20 million people obtain health insurance, has steadily grown more popular.”
Like hell it has. But here we go. Obamacare more popular than ever, Republicans hated and despised. And that may be, but not for the reasons the Reuters implies here. Obamacare hasn’t helped 20 million people obtain health insurance. And here’s another thing about this CBO score. I have intended to mention this the past couple or three days and just never got around to it.
The CBO score. We gotta get rid of the CBO. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, is one of the primary obstacles to any legislation being passed, but particularly health care reform. You remember when the media and the Democrats were just breathlessly excited when they released the CBO numbers that repealing and replacing Obamacare would cause 22 million Americans to lose their health insurance? Do you know why that would happen? It was because repeal repealed the mandate that people had to buy it.
In other words, the CBO said that 22 million people would cancel their policy. Well, that’s not what they said. That’s the end result. That’s how it would have had to happen. Because nobody was gonna take anybody’s health insurance away, and nobody’s health insurance was gonna be canceled. And yet the CBO is out there screeching that 22 million people will lose their health insurance. “No, we can’t do that, that’s horrible, that’s inhumane, that’s no compassion.”No, no. It was simply the CBO guessing that if people didn’t have to buy it, they wouldn’t. Which may make sense. How many people have bought this rigmarole simply because the law requires them to? How many people have actually engaged in this and gone and petered around inside one of these exchanges to come up with an Obamacare policy because they had to?
So the idea that removing the mandate requiring them to buy it is a good thing! It is a reinstallation, if you will, of the degree of liberty and freedom we had before Obamacare. Before Obamacare, you didn’t have to have it. Everybody wanted it, but you didn’t have to go buy it. No matter what it costs, you didn’t have to buy it. So the CBO says 22 million people will lose their health insurance. What a gross misstatement of what would actually happen. And of course with the absence of critical thinking being taught, nobody concluded the correct thing.
And yet that statistic, released the way it was, with the wording as it was, led to a lot of people not supporting it because they envisioned insurance companies canceling people, because, yes, that’s what insurance companies do. All companies would rather their customers get sick and die than have to cover them and pay for them. Big Tobacco wanted to kill the customer. Big Oil wants to destroy the planet. Big Pharmaceutical doesn’t want to cure disease. Big Coal, all they want to do is pollute the rivers. Big Box Retail, all they want to do is rip people off.
You take your pick. Whatever major industry we’re talking about, the Democrats have demonized ’em. And now the health insurance providers are such that if they don’t have to provide it, they won’t, when in fact it wasn’t about that at all. But back to the wording of this story. Obamacare did not and has not helped 20 million people obtain health insurance.
Now, Reuters writes this as though Obamacare provided a freebie. Obamacare provided an entitlement. Yes. Because people who couldn’t otherwise afford it because insurance companies are mean were given subsidies in order to be able to buy it because the law said they had to, but corporations are so mean that they price it out of people’s reach, and that means that Obama made it possible for people have it, which is a stack of coal.
You know how many people are on Obamacare right now? What is the number that you know? Pick a number. The number of Americans who are actually on Obamacare. I have a number here that is hard to believe. In fact, I ought not use this number because I don’t think it’s right, but it’s not far off. The number I have here is eight million people on Obamacare. That can’t be right.
But the point is, Obamacare is nowhere near covering everybody. It’s a giant myth that Obamacare came along and magically created health insurance opportunities for people that didn’t have it. And it’s also not true that the Republican repeal would take health care away from people who wanted it. So many lies and so many just straight distortions here. The majority of people who are on an Obamacare policy had insurance anyway before they signed up for Obamacare. And there are a few million more on Medicaid thanks to the Medicaid expansion. But the Medicaid expansion is not health insurance.
It’s also a lie that Obamacare has steadily become more popular. Nothing could be further from the truth. If that were true, more people would be signing up for Obamacare, but they aren’t. If that were true, the insurance companies would be lowering premiums because so many people would be signing up. If that were true, so many different state exchanges would have more than one provider.
The CBO predicted 22 million people would sign up for Obamacare by this time, since 2010. The number here is eight million, fewer than eight million. What are we talking about? That’s another thing about Obamacare that was always crazy from the beginning. If it was really about providing insurance for those who didn’t have it — that number is anywhere from eight to 12, and at the top 30 (at the very top 25, 30) million who didn’t have it. Obamacare didn’t fix that, didn’t address that because that’s not what Obamacare was about.
Look, I don’t want to re-litigate all this like we did starting in 2010, 2009 when it was being debated. But I’m telling you: There is so much disinformation out there about this that the Republican Party itself has fallen prey to it. The idea it’s growing more popular, that Americans want Congress to move on from it? Both of those things are not true. Here’s a little cross-tab from the poll that I do not believe:
“Among Republicans, 75% said that they would like their party’s leaders to repeal and replace Obamacare at some point, though most listed other issues that would give a higher priority right now. When asked what they think Congress should do next, most Americans picked tax reform and then foreign relations and then infrastructure. Only 29% said they wanted the Republicans in Congress to continue working on a new health care bill.” Republicans. That’s what the poll says. I don’t believe it. But I could be wrong. And if it is true that only 29% want a new bill, it’s because their frustrated and don’t think the Republican Party can get it done anyway.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Yesterday… I don’t think I’ve got the audio on this. Doesn’t matter. Jake Tapper yesterday had Bernie Sanders on, and they were discussing single payer. It failed in Vermont. The governor of Vermont tried single payer. It failed, wouldn’t work, and didn’t have the money, and Jake Tapper was interrogating Crazy Bernie about this. “If Even ‘Cobalt-Blue States’ Can’t Make Single Payer Work,” then why in the world does anybody think it’ll work in Washington or anywhere else?
Crazy Bernie did not have an answer when asked why it didn’t work in Vermont. The governor there, Peter Shumlin, did declare the debate over after getting estimates of the projected costs of socialized medicine in California. In California, the state assembly declared that they were gonna go single payer. The California state budget every year is $180 billion. Single payer for California alone would cost $200 to $300 billion, in addition to everything else the state’s already spending. The state budget without it is $180 billion. Single payer: $200 billion, minimum. And you know how they said they were gonna finance it?
A 15% increase in the payroll tax!
Which wouldn’t even get close ’cause people are not gonna sit there and stand for that. Single payer may be the issue where everybody suddenly realizes Washington can’t do it. There isn’t the money for it! What is it we’re $20 trillion in debt? We really, theoretically… Folks, we don’t have the money to do anything with that kind of debt, and yet there doesn’t seem to be any limit on spending, except when something’s this outrageous. The states can’t print money, so there’s no way they can do it. So these states acting as little, miniature laboratories for these great national ideas? It’ll cost $200 billion when a state budget is already $180 billion.
Let me grab a call in before we wrap up the hour. I want to start with Anna in Phoenix. Welcome. It’s great to have you here. How are you?
CALLER: Oh, fine. How are you, Rush?
RUSH: Very good. Very good. Thank you.
CALLER: Okay. You said be brief; I’m gonna be brief. My husband and I were talking about what happened with President Trump saying that he’s thinking about pulling funding for the congressman and senators’ own health care. My husband said, “That probably will not make any dent at all with them. What they care about is getting reelected.” So he said, “What he should do is go out and rally in each of the states where these senators are holding him up and rally to recall them. Do a recall for them, because they’re not doing the job.” What do you think?
RUSH: Well, I don’t know specifically about recall. But I do know that people are seething, and that’s why this Reuters poll of people saying, “Move on! We’re tired of it. Move on to tax reform”? That’s a crock. Now, you say that your husband says that removing the funding for members of Congress and Obamacare would not bother them because all they care about is being reelected. I am here to tell you:
What they did in voting down the repeal and replace of Obamacare tells me they’re not afraid of the voters at all. The voters, of course, is how they get reelected. Now, McCain obviously is not gonna run again. Many of the senators just got elected, so they’re not gonna face voters for six years. A third of the Senate is up in 2018; another third’s up in 2020. But it’s clear — and I have, I think, succinctly and brilliantly made this point on prior broadcasts — that the senators are afraid of something.
But it’s not you. It’s not the voters. They’re certainly afraid of somebody — or else they despise somebody — but they’re not afraid. You know, Ted Cruz said the thing that he discovered that was the most… I mean, he knew it, but to see it in action every day? It blew his mind that the single, dominating thing in every day of a senator’s life is getting reelected, which means fundraising. That’s number one, first and foremost.
Okay, if that’s true, then how do you explain so many Republicans saying “no” on Obamacare? And the Democrats, too. There are a lot of Democrats coming up in ’18 that should be vulnerable because they come from states that went very strong for Trump. And I’m thinking they’re living under the illusion everybody hates Trump, and so they don’t need to worry about that anymore. But they’re not worried about reelection on this. Taking them off Obamacare? Believe me, they tried to except themselves from what they were doing.
That does matter to them.
It’s the craziest thing.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Investor’s Business Daily, an op-ed: “Murkowski and McCain Saved Obamacare Just Months After Promising Voters They Would Repeal It.” It may be standard-operating issue now, but I still don’t think people can hear this enough. “Whatever your views on Obamacare, the simple fact is that the GOP Senate voted to repeal Obamacare in December 2015, knowing full well that President Obama would veto the bill. That vote was [purposefully] conveniently timed to give Republican lawmakers the ability to go back to their states and proclaim that they had tried to repeal Obamacare, but were thwarted by a Democratic president. …
“Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, for example, wrote multiple op-eds for her hometown papers decrying what Obamacare had done to her state, and vowing to repeal it, in the run-up to her 2016 re-election. In one [op-ed,] she wrote that ‘the Affordable Care Act has unfortunately become one of the most ironically named pieces of legislation for Alaska in history.’” Lisa Murkowski was one of all these Republicans voted in December of 2015.

For those of you in Rio Linda, it means the next month is 2016, which is an election year. They wanted to be on record as close to an election year as possible that they had sent a vote to repeal Obamacare up to Obama. Damn it, they repealed it. But that’s what you get with a Democrat in the White House. You give us a Republican in the White House and we’ll repeal it. She tells everybody how it’s not affordable. It’s not this and that. It’s not anything it purports to be, and she lays claim to no doubt that she opposes it.
“In a floor speech in May 2016, she claimed that ‘I have consistently supported full repeal of [Obamacare] and have voted to do so on several occasions. I have recognized that it is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to do so with [the Obama] administration.’ She voted for the repeal bill in 2015.” She voted for the repeal bill in 2015 — which, again, was timed purposely to give these people an example to say in their election, “I just voted! I just voted to repeal it. You give us the presidency, and it’s over with.”
She couldn’t even vote for that. The CBO gave her cover, don’t you know? She said, “I did not come here to inflict pain on people.” What’s that, inflicting people on people? “Well, the CBO said that 22 million lovable Americans will lose their health insurance if…” No. No. Yeah, they said it, but that’s a great big misdirection. The truth is 22 million people may not all lose their health insurance. It was simply the way the CBO chose to portray what they thought would happen if the mandate were done away with.
It’s interesting to me that (chuckles) the Congressional Budget Office thinks if the mandate were taken away, everybody who bought Obamacare would cancel it. What does that say about it? But they chose to portray it as the government’s gonna take it away from you, or your insurance companies are not gonna ensure you. Lisa Murkowski knew better. She knew what it meant. She knew that simply repealing the personal mandate, the employer mandates — simply removing the requirement that you have insurance — doesn’t mean people lose it.
It means they have their freedom back! That’s right. “She even voted against a ‘skinny’ repeal that would have only ditched the law’s individual and employer mandates and suspended the tax on medical devices [like dildos] — a tax that is so harmful to that industry that even uber-liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants it repealed.” (interruption) What, you didn’t think that’s a medical device? (scoffs) , you go… (interruption) You go talk to… (interruption) Well, it certainly is. (interruption) In the right hands?
“Murkowski was joined by Sen. John McCain, who ended up being the decisive vote killing the skinny repeal bill…” By the way, you don’t think that was accidental, do you? You don’t think they waited and gave McCain the last vote accidentally, do you? “Just a year before saving Obamacare, however, McCain was vigorously attacking the law to win a tough reelection campaign. As Politico put it in a June 2016 article: ‘In fight of his political life, McCain hammers Obamacare[.]’
“One of his 2016 campaign ads said ‘Obamacare is failing Arizonans’ and that ‘John McCain is leading the fight to stop Obamacare.’ Last February McCain introduced a bill to ‘fully’ repeal Obamacare and replace it with a ‘free-market approach that strengthens the quality and accessibility of care.’” But McCain was running for reelection then, and so he was having to say things that he knew his constituents wanted to hear. He wasn’t saying things he actually intended to do, obviously. Just like all the Republicans of his ilk.
Once elected, he sang a completely different tune. There’s a YouTube of McCain’s promises. He explains why Obamacare must be repealed and replaced. It was during the 2016 campaign. McCain said in a YouTube video: “For the first time in history a major entitlement reform was rammed through the Congress without a single vote from the other side. I fought for weeks and weeks and weeks against Obamacare. They would not allow us an amendment. There was not a single amendment allowed. No input from the minority party.
“We were the minority party. Now Congresswoman Kirkpatrick” his opponent “wants to sit down and work together. Well, here’s how we work together: We repeal and we replace it.” That’s McCain in a YouTube video last year. “McCain went on to argue that the majority of the American people have ‘resoundingly rejected Obamacare.’ One of the debate moderators asked McCain if it was possible for Congress to try to improve Obamacare rather than to try to repeal it. McCain rejected the idea that it could be fixed and that the only solution is to repeal Obamacare.” This is last year!
This is the very same McCain that happily gave a thumbs down last week. Folks, it is sad to have to observe, but John McCain just proved that everything his harsh critics have ever said about him is likely true, and we know why. We know exactly why. Some people might even claim they understand it. Trump, in one of his early statements after having announced his intention to seek the Republican presidential nomination, when asked about Senator McCain, said he didn’t have a whole life respect for him ’cause he got captured.
Trump says he has more respect for military people that don’t get captured. (sigh) Well, think what you will of that. But you cannot think what you will of that without recognizing the importance of that story to McCain’s political biography. It is crucial to McCain’s biography. Everybody knows it — that’s how crucial it’s been — that McCain was captured after being shot down, that when the Vietcong found out who he was (i.e., the son of a famous Navy admiral), they offered him release and how McCain said no.
He was not going to take early release unless his fellow prisoners would be released — and of course, they weren’t; so McCain wasn’t. That story has been part of McCain’s political biography. Here came Trump inside of two sentences blowing it smithereens. McCain, I just know — as I say, I’m sure many of you can even understand, maybe even agree — has been waiting for the right moment to stick it back to Trump and chose to do it last Thursday as the last vote, thumbs down, killing Obamacare repeal.
So let’s not hear about all this statesmanship stuff. Let’s not hear about all that. That’s maybe applicable to some. Even John Fund at National Review: “Mr. McCain Goes to Washington.” Just let me give some pull quotes from this piece. “McCain’s vote against advancing Obamacare reform represents a complete reversal of the position he won his Senate election with last year. John Merline of Investor’s Business Daily notes that ‘In the private sector, promising one thing and delivering the other could be referred to as “deceptive trade practice.”
“‘For some members of Congress, it’s just another day at the office.’ … Journalists [i.e. the media] rushed to gush over [McCain’s] vote, cast only a few days after a surgery to remove a dangerous brain tumor. The New Yorker’s take was typical: ‘Throughout his political life, John McCain has for many reasons enjoyed bipartisan respect and even reverence: his independence of mind (usually), his candor (usually), his decency, his love of country,’” and all of this is said of John McCain because he regularly betrays his own party.
That’s why the media loves John McCain.
Reported by Ryan Pickrell | China/Asia Pacific Reporter | 4:56 PM 07/30/2017
A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor is launched from the Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska during Flight Test THAAD (FTT)-18 in Kodiak, Alaska, U.S., July 11, 2017. During the test, the THAAD weapon system successfully intercepted an air-launched intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) target. Leah Garton/Missile Defense Agency/Handout via REUTERS
Sunday’s test of a U.S. missile defense system.The U.S. military conducted a test of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system Sunday. A THAAD battery located at the Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska in Kodiak, Alaska, detected, tracked, and intercepted a medium-range ballistic missile air-launched from a U.S. Air Force C-17 over the Pacific Ocean. Sunday’s test was the second successful test of the THAAD anti-missile system this month.
The U.S. began deploying THAAD in South Korea in March after North Korea launched a salvo of Scud missiles into the East Sea/Sea of Japan. The new South Korean government, after a period of initial hesitation and concern, is requesting additional THAAD batteries as the threat from its nuclear neighbor grows.
The THAAD system in South Korea is operational and has achieved initial intercept capability.
WATCH:
THAAD is not designed to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles, like the one North Korea tested for
the second time Friday, but it is an excellent defensive tool when it comes to short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. In recent months, the North has successfully tested a precision Scud, the Pukguksong-2 (KN-15) MRBM, and the Hwasong-12 IRBM, all of which are new weapons systems rolled out this year. North Korea can use these missiles against its neighbors, specifically South Korea and Japan.
Japan has also expressed an interest in the THAAD anti-missile system, which has a perfect test record but has never been tested in actual combat.
Send tips to ryan@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/07/31/mccain-kills-repeal-bill/#EY4v7Z8yFAFcubxC.99
To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.
A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!
Read more at http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/07/31/a-f-branco-cartoon-featured-in-the-book-the-big-lie/#8ChWxG8fQpOqg3pW.99
Reported Saturday, 29 Jul 2017 02:15 PMURL of the original posting site: http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Obamacare-healthcare-legislation-President-Donald-Trump-Congress/2017/07/29/id/804572/

He went further to suggest the end result would be an end to insurance bailouts as well as “bailouts for Congress” come election day.
“After seven years of ‘talking’ Repeal & Replace, the people of our great country are still being forced to live with imploding ObamaCare!” Trump tweeted. “If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!”


The latest attempt by senators collapsed when they failed to reach a threshold to pass a “skinny” repeal bill early Friday morning that would have ended the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase insurance or pay a fine. It would also have suspended through 2026 the requirement that businesses provide insurance for their workers.
Earlier in the week another bill met with defeat in the Senate that would have repealed the healthcare law.
Republican lawmakers have been conflicted over how exactly to change the nation’s healthcare system after many of them were elected to office on the platform of repealing and replacing Obamacare. Democratic lawmakers have been steadfast in opposition to changing any of the legislation enacted under former President Barack Obama.
Regardless of the stance of congressional lawmakers, the healthcare law has frayed edges as some Americans are forced to pay exorbitant rates in order to have health insurance, while the burden of funding has not diminished to subsidize those who qualify. Some are left without a choice or only one choice at all and CNBC predicts health insurers will likely pull out completely from 49 counties in the nation in 2018.
The New York Times on Saturday explained the effect the president is already exerting on Obamacare, and maintained his primary options for impacting the healthcare system fell into three main arenas. While opponents could cheer the fact that Trump is making cracks to break the healthcare law apart, supporters decry any chinks into the Obamacare armor.
Trump is undermining Obamacare with weakened enforcement of the individual mandate, the Times argued, saying, “the Internal Revenue Service has said it will continue accepting tax returns that do not say whether a filer has been uninsured.”
This could pave the way for more exceptions by the White House in the future, as well as signaling “publicly that it does not care about the mandate, which may cause people to be less likely to sign up, even if they later get hit with a tax penalty.”
A second effect the Trump administration could have would be to impose work requirement for Medicaid recipients. While the president cannot prevent states from expanding Medicaid, the article explained he could “allow states that apply to impose work requirements or charge premiums for more Medicaid beneficiaries, through a process that lets the government waive the normal Medicaid rules.”
To do so could cause many poor Americans to not have access to the system due to its cost. GOP lawmakers have worked to rein in federal spending on Medicaid expansion — attempts which may have caused many states to end it entirely.
The Trump administration has backed off outreach promoting Obamacare unlike Obama’s White House. Without promotion, citizens may not be aware of healthcare coverage options, The Times maintained.
Once Trump was inaugurated, the White House within days pulled ads and outreach that encouraged people’s participation. If the result has been lower numbers signing up for Obamacare, prices for insurance will like rise.
Trump met the latest GOP failure to pass a bill aimed at solving the growing issues and burdens of paying for Obamacare by chiding lawmakers, saying on Friday he would “let Obamacare implode“ because of their failure to find a solution to the issue that has garnered passion by those who want government to control the healthcare system and those who want to abolish government health insurance control.
© 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved
Reported by Bryan Fischer Host of “Focal Point” | Friday, July 28, 2017 @ 1:09 PMURL of the original posting site: http://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2017/07/john-mccain-and-the-swamp-1-the-american-people-0/

The words that should come to every American’s lips every time they read another story about the catastrophe of ObamaCare are these: “Thank you, John McCain.”
I have never been a fan of term limits – limiting terms is what elections are for – but Sen. McCain may have just changed my mind. He’s virtually a one-man argument for strict term limits.
I predicted at the beginning of this whole farce that at the end of the day we were going to be stuck with ObamaCare with all its colossal bloat and misbegotten mandates for one simple reason: too many Republican lawmakers have virtually no conservative convictions or principles. And if they do have them, they are well-hidden and the first thing thrown overboard when the New York Times starts yammering at them.
The only path back to sanity on health care is through the free market. ObamaCare needs to be repealed root and branch because it is an exercise in government-run, government-controlled health care, which is just a form of fascism. Literally. Fascism is, by definition, a system in which you are allowed to own your own business but the government tells you how to run it. We went to war in 1941 to stop that kind of foolishness from turning Europe into the dark continent.

The only proper role for government in health insurance is to enforce the sanctity of the contract. A health insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured. If an insurer fails to fulfill his end of the contract by providing the services promised in the contract, the insurer can and should be sued in the interests of justice, and civil government should hold them strictly accountable. But that’s it. In fact, enforcing contracts should be the only role of government anywhere in a free economy.
If ObamaCare were to be repealed tomorrow, as it should be, and wasn’t replaced by anything, virtually overnight health insurance companies, because they want to stay in business and make money, would be competing with each other in a mad dash to offer a veritable cornucopia of health plans. You can make bank that these plans would include low-premium, high-deductible, catastrophic policies which would provide inexpensive and entirely affordable protection for ordinary Americans against the cost of major medical events. The Cruz amendment would have created this kind of market, but alas it was strangled in the cradle by Republicans and dumped in the Swamp. 
Under a free-market plan, employers could make these plans available to their employees at a fraction of the current cost of health insurance. The employers would then be able to take what they save in premiums and contribute it to health savings accounts owned by their employees, which would rapidly enable their employees to accumulate enough to satisfy the deductible and to take care of ordinary medical expenses along the way.
The competition across state lines would be fierce, as insurance companies, without the promise of gargantuan, taxpayer-funded bailouts, would compete with each other for your insurance dollar. Health insurance companies would have to step up their game to earn business, rather than counting on the heavy hand of government to drive business into their nets by ordering every citizen to buy their product.
Perhaps showing his true colors, before the final vote was called McCain literally walked across the aisle and engaged in a hug-fest with Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein and a gaggle of Democrats. In fact, McCain told his best buddies on the left that he wanted to stick a fork in the whole repeal effort: “Let’s get this over with,” he told them, before walking theatrically to the well of the Senate and delivering a dramatic thumbs-down, a gesture worthy of any Roman emperor in the Coliseum. 
Democrat Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said, “I was trying not to jump up and down and smile.” Video showed Sen. Schumer exuberantly pumping his fist in celebration, just what we hoped to see when we gave Republicans the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office.

Posted July 28, 2017 01:35 PM by Chris Pandolfo URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/house-gop-demands-new-special-counsel-to-investigate-obama-admin

Clinton & Obama | Marc Nozell | Flickr
The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein calling for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Heavy reports.
“We are writing to you to request assistance in restoring public confidence in our nation’s justice system and its investigators, specifically the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),” the letter says. “We need to enable these agencies to perform their necessary and important law enforcement and intelligence functions fully unhindered by politics.”
Republicans expressed that they are not confident that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the full scope of matters related to the 2016 election, especially those pertaining to interference in the election conducted by members of the Obama administration.
“The unbalanced, uncertain, and seemingly unlimited focus of the special counsel’s investigation has led many of our constituents to see a dual standard of justice that benefits only the powerful and politically well-connected,” the letter states.
Among the evidence of untoward behavior by the Obama administration Republicans cited was Mr. Comey’s sworn testimony before Congress that Loretta Lynch instructed him to refer to the FBI’s criminal probe into Hillary Clinton as a “matter” rather than an “investigation.” Additional reports of Comey’s closed-door testimony before Congress go further than the public record, suggesting that Lynch told Comey to get out of her office after he confronted her privately with evidence that suggested she had agreed “to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton.”
Comey’s own decision to close the investigation into Secretary Clinton shortly after that meeting has also caused suspicion of misconduct.
Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin has previously called for former FBI Director Comey to be investigated. Earlier this month, The Hill reported that over half of Comey’s private memos on conversations he had with President Trump contained classified information. If that report is true, Comey had the same disregard for classified information as Hillary Clinton, whom he was criminally investigating for before declaring that he would not indict Clinton.
“It’s absolutely contemptible,” Levin said of Comey’s behavior, declaring that Comey “must be subjected to an investigation.”
This letter by House Republicans is just the first step in what must be a comprehensive investigation of the Obama administration’s actions during the 2016 election.
Here is the letter in full:
House Judiciary Letter by Chris on Scribd
Chris Pandolfo is a staff writer and type-shouter for Conservative Review. He holds a B.A. in politics and economics from Hillsdale College. His interests are conservative political philosophy, the American founding, and progressive rock. Follow him on Twitter for doom-saying and great album recommendations @ChrisCPandolfo.
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/07/28/be-prepared/#m5ALXI7p5DRktIf2.99
Reported URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/6-soldiers-trump-trans-ban-answers/

But the Independent Journal Review figured that, since this ban on transgender people in the military will pretty much only affect the military, maybe we should see what actual members of the military think about it instead of asking political advocates and talking heads in the liberal media. It was an eye-opening move.
“Only two things matter: Survivability and lethality,” stated Army Sgt. Darian Browning, who served in the 82nd Airborne. “Anything other than that is a distraction. We have budget problems, also, already.
“The stated purpose of the Army is to ‘fight and win the Nation’s land wars,’” added Browning. “Any decisions or budget fixes should be centered around that and that alone.”
“The military is a machine that doesn’t breakdown for politics,” said Marine Sgt. Sean Conner, Iraq veteran and MARSOC Raider. “I can assure you that the reasoning for this decision is for the benefit of the whole system.”
“Considering less than 1 percent identify as transgender in the military, it would be a major burden, and the cost benefit analysis would be in the favor of not allowing this policy to go through,” Conner continued. “The amount of change, cost and redirection would not outweigh the very small pros, if any.”
“The military had it right before with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or else things get complicated real quick,” he added. “The rules were there before Trump came around and for good reason. I empathize if they want to serve, but just do it without having to announce your sexual orientation — it’s pretty simple.”
Connor also noted that service members undergoing hormone therapy or sex-change operations are not permitted to work full duty or be deployed, sometimes up to two years, essentially rendering them a waste of time, training, resources and taxpayer money.
Marine Staff Sgt. Josh Ghering, a veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq and a former drill instructor, seemed to agree with that last bit pointed out by Conner about transitioning troops being removed from the routine all others must endure.
“We need to be focused on how to improve our warfighting ability, period,” he said.
“If transgendered individuals are being taken out for these procedures and treatments, they are not being trained properly,” he continued. “Before we go to war, we train for over a year on ranges and with regimen after regimen. So then we take these individuals out of training to get their surgery. But what good are they if we are over in a war zone and they aren’t able to contribute to the fight because they’re going through therapy or recovering from said surgery?”
He added that “the military is not a social experiment. Its objective is to fight wars. That’s where its sole focus should be.”
“I believe that the infantry and combat arms should stay male. (male: being born with male genitalia),” stated wounded Iraq veteran and Army Sgt. Jay Strobino. “In the military, your roles, positions and tasks are very clear and outlined. And I have nothing against transgendered people or homosexuals, but it’ll start confusing those roles.”
“It’s not the ability so much of the individual, because yes there are plenty of females that can out lift me, out run me and so on,” explained Strobino. “But it’s a lower average as a whole, just due to body limitations. And you can’t have two sets of standards for the same group. It just won’t work.”
Strobino asserted that lowering standards to accommodate those with lesser abilities would be worse than having two sets of standards.
“If you’re under the standard then you either train and improve, or you’re not in combat arms,” he said. “There’s no middle ground.”
However, while most of those questioned by the Independent Journal Review supported the policy change in principle, there was at least one who disagreed with it and another who generally supported the idea, but questioned the manner in which it was rolled out.
“I don’t like that he just ran with it. He should have had a policy ready to go and Mattis should have rolled it out,” stated Army sniper Gregory Diacogiannis, an Iraq War veteran.
“The military is here to destroy the enemy. It’s not a social experiment. We shouldn’t be using the military as a petri dish to push progressive ideas,” he continued. “They are a killing machine. People are denied service for all kinds of reasons. Why should we treat people with gender dysphoria differently?”
Diacogiannis maintained that such individuals are in need of help and the military is not the place for them to receive such help, nor would it help the military, and noted that treating people differently or having differing sets of standards would be detrimental to overall morale.
“You will ‘other’ them because they will become a protected class. In combat everyone is equal, it doesn’t matter if you are black, white, gay, straight, man, or woman,” he explained. “But if you let other people live by a different standard you crush morale. Also, we are talking about 0.1 percent of the population not being able to serve.”
Finally, the lone voice of disagreement found by IJR was Afghanistan veteran and Army Ranger Zac Oja, who stated, “I’m curious to see how this will be implemented. Will the openly transgendered individuals currently serving be forced out of the military? Will they be forced to ‘identify’ with what their birth certificate says for gender?
“This, in my opinion, is going to do nothing markedly positive but will open the flood gate to the left for open dissent against this new policy,” he added.
Oja suggested that more time should have been given for further study of the costs/benefits of transgender service members openly serving in the military, in order to gain a better overall understanding of the matter.
“I will say that I have heard nothing but good things from dear friends that have served with openly transgender soldiers,” added Oja.
The media most likely want nothing more than a division’s worth of soldiers vehemently castigating the president and calling this latest policy shift nothing short of horrible, but that is not what they are going to find, at least not with this batch of troops.
To be sure, there will be a handful like Oja who may disagree with the premise, or others, like Diacogiannis who disliked the manner in which it was introduced, but by and large, most members of the military are sure to be at least quietly supportive of the change. They know that the military is not the realm for progressive social engineering and tinkering, but instead is supposed to be a finely tuned killing machine that wastes no time or energy on anything else.
Commentary by “Re: Hunting in Kuwait as explanation why this Noor guy shot through the car
“I remember being in Kuwait with the president of the investment bank I worked for. We were invited by one of our directors to hunt turtle doves. There were five of us in all and each had a 12-gauge shotgun.
“Instructions were: Only shoot straight and up; shotgun point in air resting on shoulders when not being used. That’s it. I was on the far left, and the fellow on the other end was a Syrian.
“Well, we were out there and no straggling turtle doves were migrating. A half-hour later, not one shot was fired. Then, two birds from a tree ahead darted out, between me and the houses on my left.
“We all looked, but the Syrian turned toward us and began shooting over our heads at the birds. The rest of us hit the ground. Even though our host took his gun away, I gave them mine and went back because, if there is a way to overreact, the Syrian would think it is natural and can’t even consider the consequences.
“You cannot place these people in a position of authority (for example with a gun in their hands). They will always shoot as a default reaction to anything that is instant. Neither training nor thinking can change their natures.
“And that is why he shot. He had a gun.”
Since then, we’ve found out that this is exactly why Officer Mohamed Noor shot the gentle yoga instructor walking toward the police car. He heard a loud noise — or as Powerline blog is calling it, “The Loud Noise Heard ‘Round the World.”
Noor shot from the passenger seat, killing Justine Damond, according to his partner, sitting at the wheel, who is presumably now deaf. Damond had called 911 to report what sounded like a rape in the alley behind her house, and was approaching the responding police car when she was shot.
As usually happens when Muslims attack, the press is consumed with worry about their mental state and well-being.
Sample Headlines:
Somalis on edge after Minneapolis cop named in fatal shooting — The Daily Herald (Everett, Washington), July 18, 2017
Somalis in Minneapolis on defensive after police shooting — St. Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota), July 21, 2017
Minneapolis shooting brings unwelcome attention to Somalis — Associated Press, July 22, 2017
There are nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world, amounting to a quarter of the world’s population, controlling 50 countries. The English-speaking world is about a fifth that size and constitutes a dwindling majority in about a half-dozen countries. But, somehow, no matter how the story is written, Muslims always get to play the victim, and Anglo-Saxons are cast as the aggressors.
That’s why a Somali cop’s fatal shooting of a pajama-clad Good Samaritan has gone directly into the “Be Nice to Muslims!” file, rather than the “Why Are All These Somalis Here?” file. (Answer: Because of an earlier mistake with excessive Scandinavian immigration.)
I can’t help noticing that it was precisely the “Be Nice to Muslims!” dictate that put this Somali nincompoop on the police force in the first place.
Among Noor’s evident errors the night he killed Justine:
1) Shooting from the passenger seat, the bullet whizzing inches past his partner’s face, through the driver’s side window;
2) Not turning his bodycam on when responding to a 911 call;
3) Shooting to kill because he heard a loud noise;
4) Believing that white women in America pose a threat to a policeman.
A few of the Weather Underground ladies were accomplices to cop-killings, 40 years ago, but even they weren’t lone white women cop-killers.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, women of any race committed about 10 percent of all murders from 1980 to 2008, and black people committed a majority of all murders. Other than a small child, it’s difficult to think of a demographic that poses less of a threat to a policeman in America than a 40-year-old white woman.
Noor’s African-American neighbor, Chris Miller, said he was shocked when he heard about Damond’s shooting — until he found out it was Noor. Miller told The Daily Telegraph (Australia) that his Somali neighbor was quick to anger and was always going off on women and children. “He is extremely nervous,” Miller said, “a little jumpy … he doesn’t really respect women, the least thing you say to him can set him off.”
Sounds perfect for a police officer!
May we see Officer Noor’s cadet exam? His training reports? Does anyone believe there is the slightest possibility that Noor was not rushed through the Police Academy so that the nice people of Minneapolis could feel good about themselves for having a real Somali on the police force?
Minnesota’s importation of these stone-age people is a completely self-inflicted wound. It’s as if the state decided to inject itself with Hepatitis C. Hey, you know what? We’re too white and pure. Everyone tie a vein off and give yourself a shot of hep C. We could learn from that!
With Somalis, you get all the social pathologies of Muslims and the American underclass rolled into one package. There’s the terrorism and pederasty — but also the criminality and joblessness!
At least with taxpayer-draining Mexican illegals, you can say, yes, but they provide the rich with such cheap labor! Someone, somewhere in America, gets a benefit. There is absolutely no benefit to the more than 100,000 Somalis brought in by Minnesota, except to feed the Scandinavian ethnomasochism, expressed as arrogant self-regard.
Gosh, they’re good people. R.I.P. Justine.
This Week’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Contract With Republicans”
URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/08/02/contract-with-republicans/
In 1994, after 40 years in the wilderness, Republicans swept both houses of Congress, running on Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” in which the GOP promised to hold votes on 10 popular policies in the first 100 days. They won, fulfilled the contract, and went on to control the House for more than a decade.
More recently, the country gave the GOP the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014 and the presidency in 2016. But we’re not seeing any difference. The GOP has become a ratchet, never reversing Democratic victories, but only confirming them with teeny-tiny alterations.
It’s time for the voters to issue a “Contract With Republicans.” Unless our elected representatives can complete these basic, simple tasks, we’re out. There will be no reason to care about the GOP, anymore.
Whether these objectives are accomplished by President Trump or a rhesus monkey, the Democrats, the Bull Moose Party or the U.S. Pirate Party — it will make no difference to us. We just need somebody to fulfill this contract in order to get our vote.
Here are our first three contract terms.
1) BUILD THE WALL
People said the chant, “Build the wall!” was mere shorthand for a whole slew of immigration policies, unified by the single idea of putting Americans’ interests if not “first,” then at least “above the interests of complete strangers to whom we owe absolutely nothing.” It was called a term of art, meaning we want to stop sacrificing the welfare of our nation on the altar of liberal idiocy.
“Build the wall” was said to entail: a Muslim ban, deporting illegals, ending unconstitutional sanctuary cities, ending Obama’s unconstitutional “executive amnesty,” a dead-stop to the refugee scam and a massive reduction in legal immigration.
Yes, it means all that. But it also means: Build the wall.
If this is done only for reasons of conservative ideology, in recognition of the fact that the United States is a sovereign nation, entitled to protect its homeland, that’s fine with me.
But I note in passing that, if I were a progressive constantly virtue-signaling on transgenders and refugees, and occasionally pretending to care about African-Americans, the very last thing I’d want to see is the continuing dump of low-wage workers on the country, undermining black fathers’ ability to earn a living, to stay married and to pass down savings and a work ethic to their children.
The great civil rights hero Barbara Jordan understood that. The fact that our current low-rent liberals are unable to rise to her level is all the proof we need of their uselessness.
Moreover, in the future, we will once again have presidents with a taste for fascist executive orders, purporting to grant “amnesty” to illegal aliens. We will continue to have bought-and-paid-for legislators, pushing cheap labor in return for campaign donations. In the blink of an eye, they can undo every part of Trump’s America First agenda on immigration, just as Obama undid our victory in Iraq.
A wall is the only part of Trump’s immigration reforms that will not be instantly reversed by the next Barack Obama or George Bush. Allowing border patrol agents to do their jobs is a policy that lasts only as long as Trump is president. A wall is forever.
2) SUPREME COURT
Republicans need to stop having their victories written in wet sand. During the campaign, Trump vowed to impose a Muslim ban if elected; both political parties hysterically denounced him; he won the election; issued a highly modified, temporary travel restriction from a handful of majority Muslim countries; and … a handful of carefully selected federal court judges announced that, during the Trump administration, they would be implementing immigration policy.
That’s why President Trump must appoint, and the Senate confirm, brilliant conservative judges, preferably in their 30s and with good EKGs, so that they can keep issuing opinions well into their 90s.
As long as they are sufficiently vetted to ensure we’re getting no David Souters or Harriet Miers — vettings even MORE exhaustive than the alleged rectal probes given to the San Bernardino terrorists before admitting them to commit mass murder — Supreme Court justices can have nearly the same permanence as the wall.
3) STOP WASTING MONEY AND PRECIOUS LIVES ON POINTLESS WARS
The left is way ahead of us on this one, already hard at work turning the greatest military in the world into taxpayer-funded adventures in lesbianism and transgenderism. (Sorry, taxpayers! We gave your Social Security to mental-case penis-choppers.)
Every recent war has been counterproductive at best. At worst, they have been meat-grinders for our bravest young men. Imagine that some small portion of the trillions of dollars poured into the endless — and ongoing! — war in Afghanistan had been used to build a 100,000-seat soccer stadium in Baghdad. And then imagine that we built 100 more just like it, right next to one another.
If we had taken a satellite photo of all those stadiums filled to capacity, the caption would be: “Not one American life is worth all the lives pictured here.”
That’s not anti-Arab. I’m sure they would feel exactly the same. I would respond, “Yes, of course, you’re right to feel that way.”
If we’re ever attacked, we should be prepared to unload our full arsenal. But it’s not our job to create functioning democracies in primitive rape-based societies around the globe.
Apart from an attack on U.S. soil by a foreign country, we are going to live our lives, go to work, celebrate the Fourth of July, and never bother learning the difference in Sunni and Shia Arabs. Once a decade, when we fleetingly remember Yemen or Saudi Arabia, we will hope they’re doing well, then get back to our lives — surrounded by a wall and living in a constitutional democracy, where our greatest young men aren’t continually sacrificed in pointless wars.
Share this:
Category:
Political
Tagged with: