URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/07/19/feeling-heavy/#ZTRstsK3Itmjo0B8.99
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
More A.F. Branco cartoons at Constitution.com here.
A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!
A Perspective by 
Daniel Horowitz | March 01, 2017URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/trump-scored-big-using-a-conventional-speech-to-kick-off-an-unconventional-presidency
Donald Trump in Mesa, AZ / Gage Skidmore | Flickr
In many ways this was the best speech he has given to date. In fact, it was a perfect presentation of his agenda. To be clear, not all of his agenda is conservative, but that is already baked into the cake. Amidst a month of endless muddled messaging, ramblings about the media, Republican infighting, and competing factions within his own administration, last night was his only opportunity to take his message directly to the American people. It was also a time to move beyond campaign rhetoric and embrace the reality of his party controlling all of government and the need for a forward-looking message.
Here are my quick observations on the policy aspects of the speech, divided into what conservatives should consider good and bad..
Coming into the speech, rumors were swirling in the media that Trump would embrace some sort of amnesty. Not only did that not occur, but Trump reclaimed the term “immigration reform” and used it to describe what the word truly means: finally restoring our immigration system to its historical values before Ted Kennedy destroyed it. That means only admitting immigrants who love our values, do not become a public charge, and do not threaten our way of life. It also means implementing a sane legal immigration system that is not based on chain migration. He put Democrats on defense so that they will have to explain why they oppose merit-based immigration.. For those of us who’ve worked on this issue for years, this speech was just what the doctor ordered.
Trump spoke to the morality, not just the legality, of his immigration moratorium, which we called on him to do earlier this week. As Trump said,
“It is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur. Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values.” He also charted a completely new path on the entire premise and goal of refugee policy: “The only long-term solution for these humanitarian disasters is to create the conditions where displaced persons can safely return home and begin the long process of rebuilding.”
Earlier today, I laid down the gauntlet for Trump to finally speak directly to the problems of Obamacare. I argued he needed to call for full repeal and hold Democrats accountable for creating this disaster but then blocking its solution. Trump did not disappoint in the macro-messaging. The guiding principles he laid out on health care were sound. He actually touched on the central point missed by GOP congressional leadership — that we should focus on lowering costs rather than expanding coverage as an end to itself, saying: “The way to make health insurance available to everyone is to lower the cost of health insurance, and that is what we will do.” Unfortunately, he contradicted that messaging by hinting at a pre-existing condition mandate and refundable tax credits — two elements of the establishment plan that will actually keep prices high. Nonetheless, the overall plan was as good as we can hope for from any Republican at this moment and needs to be bolstered by allies in the administration.
Although the details were a little sparse for a speech this long, he made it clear that the era of nation building is over. “My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America,” said Trump in a very effective punchline. At the same time, President Trump spoke to defending American security without apologizing and waging an unflinching war against radical Islamic terror. And thank God, as this is the first time in years a president has mentioned our alliance with Israel without pushing the odious “two state solution.”
Although crime is a policy mainly dealt with on a state level, I’m glad Trump used his “job” as ‘citizen in chief’ to address rising crime rates. This is one area of Trumpism that is actually more in line with traditional conservatism, even though it deviates from the current dogma among “right-leaning” policy elites. The same is true for the drug epidemic. He let the liberal open borders crowd own the disaster that is taking place in our communities thanks to drugs pouring over the border.
While we’ve come to expect social conservatism to take a back seat, it’s a shame that these issues didn’t even receive the traditional obligatory mention, especially given the persecution that is taking place at the hands of the sexual identity lobby and the courts. He could have easily woven in respect for the conscience and private property decisions of others into this unifying speech and would have been a good ambassador for the cause. He won with overwhelming support from evangelicals and other faith-based groups in this country. It’s a shame they were left out tonight. Then again, the rest of the party is just as bad on this issue, so it’s not as if Trump is changing the party’s true position. Nonetheless, conservatives need to fight harder to address fundamental rights and judicial reform.
Let our policies stand on their own merits and the media’s desire to destroy them will be that much harder.
As always, there was no mention of balancing the budget, the threat of debt, or the need to cut spending. In addition, President Trump promoted “Ivankacare” and the full blown $1 trillion porkulous he calls an infrastructure rebuilding package. Conservatives should not back down in their opposition to these bad ideas. We don’t need another massive entitlement; we need to repeal Obamacare so that mothers don’t have to work more to pay for a second mortgage. Likewise, the talk of “crumbling infrastructure” is a dubious left-wing talking point. And to the extent there are problems with our infrastructure it’s because of the inefficient, failed federal monopoly on highway spending. Trump said, “the time has come for a new program of national rebuilding.” He is right, it’s time to devolve transportation and education spending to the states in order to improve those important functions.
Moreover, Trump must remember that we cannot have economic growth with such long-term debt. Also, the trade deficit he speaks of is only a problem because of our fiscal deficit and the misallocation of investments pouring into this country.
Nothing new here, but still very problematic. Much of the appeal of “buy America” and “stopping companies from going overseas” stems from the general feeling that we have lost our economy and sovereignty. But were Trump to really propose a solid agenda ending venture socialism — taxation, regulation, and subsidization — along with his virtuous immigration ideas, those problems would go away over time and trade won’t have to be the bogeyman. Furthermore, enactment of true free market policies is the best way to keep companies in America.
Overall, there was really nothing new regarding Trump’s non-conservative views, and I believe they were overshadowed by the solid parts of his speech on immigration and Obamacare. It’s something we must continue to work on as we fight to defend his good policies.
President Trump must now harness the energy from this successful speech and deliver specific policies to Congress on taxes, immigration, and health care. He must whip GOP leaders into shape, get everyone in his administration on the same page, stay on message, and let his policies speak above the rancor of the media. Trump should focus relentlessly on his policies (hopefully the more conservative ones) and back them up with a series of policy speeches while simply ignoring the media. Yes, the media is the enemy, but we must not be our own worst enemy. Let our policies stand on their own merits and the media’s desire to destroy them will be that much harder.
By: C.E. Dyer on August 10, 2016But Breitbart reported that the editorial board of El Mañana — one of the country’s largest newspapers — wrote an article titled “Yes to the Border Wall … but in Mexico’s South,” calling for the country to build a wall along its southern border to stem the tide of illegal immigrants pouring across from Central America.
But when was the last time you heard American liberals up in arms about how Mexico treats illegal immigrants coming across its own border from the south? Apparently there’s nothing wrong with Mexico wanting to build a wall to protect its territory, but when the United States wants to do it, suddenly it’s “racist.”
This maps below are just another example of the hypocrisy of the left:
Conservative Post reported exactly how Trump can fund the wall, explained why it’s important and debunked the left’s assertions that it isn’t possible. Thanks to Mexicans who live and work in the United States, $24 billion flows into Mexico a year. If the Mexican government wants that money to continue, it will have to come up with a one-time payment of $5 to $10 billion in order to build the border wall, according to the Conservative Post.
Conservative Post mentioned three things that would help pay for the wall:
“Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules.” As Trump has repeatedly said, we need to renegotiate trade deals in America’s favor. Doing so would provide a huge source of money to put toward building the wall.
“Cancelling visas.” America is not required to take in everyone around the world and, as the article pointed out, it is a privilege to come to the United States.
The U.S. holds a great deal of power in these negotiations as Mexico uses the U.S. as a de facto welfare state and also needs visas for business and tourism purposes.
“Visa Fees.” The left regularly likes to talk about increasing taxes on Americans, but what about visa fees? Conservative Post argued that just a small increase in visa fees could pay for the wall itself.
H/T Defund.com
July 29, 2016, Well, in short it was killed pretty much for good, or at least the foreseeable future – both here in the USSA and now in Canada. As you are no doubt aware, it was Obama who, with the left in the federal and various state legislatures – and with some help from Choo-choo Warren Buffet who owns most of the rail cars now hauling crude down south, vetoed the pipeline. And don’t forget all the gobs of leftist activist money thrown at killing the project.
You may also recall that Canada threatened to build their own pipeline to their west coast and ship the oil to Asia if the U.S. did not acquiesce. That was when the “conservatives” ran Canada. But with the election of lefty socialist (like there’s another kind) Justin Trudeau in Canada, the entire XL project, above and below the border, was pronounced dead.
And that was the end of any talk of long distance oil pipelines. Or is it?
There is another long distance oil pipeline which will span 1,172 miles – from North Dakota’s famous Bakken and Three Forks oil production zones all the way to Pakota, Illinois. The 30 inch pipeline will be capable of transporting an average of 450,000 barrels of crude per day, but have a capacity of 570,000 barrels – possibly more. With this pipeline, the oil will be available to the Midwest, East Coast and Gulf Coast.
This is way it is supposed work – domestically produced crude, shipped throughout the United States for domestic consumption. No foreign entanglements whatsoever – not even friendly.
I know – you’re waiting for a shoe to drop – right? Well, so far there have been no shoes. On July 27, just two ago the Indian Country Media Network reported that “Despite the strong opposition of several tribes, the Army Corps of Engineers has approved nearly all permits to build the Dakota Access Pipeline project. Construction has already begun in all four states along its 
path.”
May I digress for just a moment? Why is it that we whiteys must call American Indians “Indigenous Peoples,” but their own media outlet can be the “Indian Country network?” I guess it’s the same reason blacks can call each other the “n” word, but we would be jailed for it. Oh well.
This time, the Injuns seem to be the only ones making a fuss (not quite) – claiming that a pipeline break could contaminate entire water supplies, destroy land and create public health hazards for reservations – but a train derailment, which are a lot more common, would never.
The only other organization to raise hell over it is of course Think Progress – the ultra-ultra left advocacy organization. If it has anything to do with actual progress, you can bet they will be firmly against it.
Their big beef, other than a pipeline which transports dirty oil and not rainbows and Unicorn farts, is that the feds are virtually shut out of the process. Other than the Army Corps of Engineers permitting process, the pipeline runs almost entirely through State and private land, so there is not much Obama can do – which is probably why we haven’t heard much about it.
Also there is the presidential election, coupled with almost daily terrorist updates worldwide – and the Olympics. These “hot” topics are sucking virtually all the oxygen out of other news.
Then there is the investment being made – all the equipment, pipes, machinery, etc. All cost loads of money, which means an uptick in those manufacturing sectors – none of which the left can tout because of the source. And of course there are all the jobs, which again cannot be discussed by the left.
The Dakota Access Pipeline is a $3.7 billion investment and will create (actually has already begun) anywhere from 8,000 to 12,000 jobs for area residents – maybe more. All trades are needed – from welders to mechanics, electricians, pipefitters, heavy equipment operators and others within the heavy construction industry. Then is the boon to the hospitality industries such as hotels, motels, restaurants, etc. along the route – none of which the press will report on.
Finally there is the increased tax revenue for the four states involved – North and South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois. The pipeline will generate an estimated $50 million annually in property taxes and nearly $74 million in sales taxes to these states.
So hooray for real progress and the relatively quiet production of a much needed domestic pipeline. It’s about time I get a chance to report some good news.
Posted on May 6, 2016It seems crazy to call it the ‘New Normal’, but once again, record numbers of Americans are renouncing citizenship. Every three months, the Treasury Department publicly names individuals who renounced. It is surely more about FATCA and family than politics. Still, numbers are flying, with one poll saying that 1 in 4 Americans would consider leaving if Trump is elected. Others claim they will leave if Hillary is elected.
FATCA EXPLAINED BELOW; Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)
In reality, of course, most who bristle about politics are not serious. And for those who are, they surely mean a temporary move, not a final exit. In contrast, giving up citizenship is a big deal. Yet the number of published expatriates for the first three months of 2016 was a record 1,158. In 2015, there were approximately 4,300 expatriations. Comparing present to past suggests that Americans renouncing citizenship have risen 560% from their Bush administration high. There are now 18 times as many renouncers as in 2008.
Of course, these numbers seem tiny compared to the influx of immigrants. Yet expatriations have historically been much lower, making the uptick worrisome. Moreover, the published list is incomplete, with many not counted. Surprisingly, no one seems to know exactly how big the real number is, even though the IRS and FBI both track Americans who renounce. There is no single explanation, though some renounce because of global tax reporting and FATCA. One law adding to the mix is the IRS power to revoke passports.
The reasons for renouncing can be family, tax and legal complications. Dual citizenship isn’t always possible, as this infographic from MoveHub shows. And leaving can be expensive. Some countries have no fee, but America charges $2,350 to hand in your passport. That is more than twenty times the average of other high-income countries. The U.S. government has collected about $12.6 million in fees since the fall of 2014, after hiking its fee to renounce citizenship by 422%. Some renouncers write why they gave up their U.S. citizenship.
By Tom Howell Jr. – The Washington Times – Tuesday, March 8, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/8/hr-block-customers-pay-twice-much-obamacare-fee
The tax-prep giant said its customers are paying an average penalty of $383 because of the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate,” compared to $172 last year.
That’s because the mandate, a lever designed to bring healthy people into the new marketplace, rose from $95 or 1 percent of qualified income — whichever is greater — in 2014 to $325 or 2 percent of income for 2015.
H&R Block also said three out of five customers who received advanced tax credits to help them buy private plans on Obamacare’s web-based exchanges must pay a portion back to the IRS because they underestimated their actual income for 2015. Together, the figures suggest filers are struggling with Obamacare, even though it is the law’s second waltz with tax season.
Starting in 2014, Obamacare’s subsidies were designed to lend a helping hand to low- and moderate-income Americans who do not hold insurance through jobs or a government program such as Medicaid, and cannot afford coverage on the individual market. Yet by routing subsidies through the tax system, filers were forced to reconcile the financial help they received up front with their actual income during the year. If the two don’t match, then filers will either cough up more to the IRS or get more money back.
Only 52 percent had to repay a portion of government subsidy during last year’s tax season, compared to 60 percent this year — undercutting the belief that subsidized customers would get better at estimating their annual pay after a year of practice. The average amount they’ve paid back to Uncle Sam has also gone up, from $530 last year to $579.
“With millions of new marketplace enrollees going through the reconciliation process for the first time we expected to see some confusion,” said Mark Ciaramitaro, vice president of H&R Block’s taxes and health care services. “But the fact a majority of returning marketplace enrollees are underestimating and having to pay back a portion of the [tax credit] signals there is still a steep learning curve on how to accurately estimate income in applying for the premium tax credit when enrolling in a marketplace plan.”
He said the problem could be due to high year-to-year volatility in how much low-income households take in each year.
H&R Block said customers who had to repay some subsidy still saw an average refund of $2,022, although it is less than what they would have received.
More than a third of taxpayers who claimed Obamacare tax credits overestimated their income and got extra money back from the IRS — $450 on average. Only 3 percent of customers didn’t see any impact on their refunds because of their exchange subsidies.
H&R Block’s analysis adds to data reported last month by TurboTax, a tax-filing company that said seven in 10 taxpayers using its online system this season claimed an exemption from the Obamacare mandate tax.
Many of those say even the cheapest plans available to them at work or on the exchanges are still too expensive, and so they claimed the IRS’s financial burden exemption in refusing to gain coverage. Others said they were exempt because they’d recently been evicted, had a close family member die, or had another hardship that excused them from the mandate.
H&R Block said uninsured customers who aren’t exempt from Obamacare’s mandate will see even stiffer penalties during next year’s tax season. The penalty is set to more than double this year from the 2015 tax, to $695 or 2.5 percent of income.
H&R Block said a family of four earning $60,000 would pay $975 this tax season, compared to about $400 last year. Next year, they could be socked for $2,000.
The Last Refuge
The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing communit The Last Refuge
The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing communit The Last Refuge
The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing communit The Last Refuge
The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing communit The Last Refuge
The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing communit The Last Refuge
The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing communit The Last Refuge
The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing communit The Last Refuge
The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing communit The Last Refuge
The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing communit
