Despite the distraction of the media/Trump tweet wars, the House managed to pass a couple of meaningful immigration enforcement bills yesterday: Kate's Law (6 pages) and No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (15 pages). That's GREAT news! The troubling news is what becomes of this legislation in the Senate if McConnell and crew don't wise up...
RollCall: A pair of enforcement bills targeting “sanctuary” cities and undocumented immigrants with prior deportations easily passed the House on Thursday, but they face an uphill climb in the Senate.
The bills are the first major pieces of immigration legislation taken up by the Republican-led Congress since President Donald Trump took office. Unlike former President Barack Obama, who had threatened to veto such measures, Trump has said he would sign both bills.
But votes in the Senate as recently as last year have shown that measures dealing with immigration policy on a piecemeal basis, especially those viewed by Democrats as racially motivated and aimed at broadly painting immigrants as dangerous [upholding law and restoring order], are not likely to meet the Senate’s 60-vote threshold required to advance most legislation.
Sanctuary city defunding is budgetary and could pass under reconciliation, only requiring a simple majority. Kate's Law should be an easier sale towards an essential, moral imperative. Unfortunately, today's Democrats are the antithesis of morality, and Republicans still don't have a supermajority. So, the quickest way to push that through to the President's desk without allowing this to devolve into a Democratic circus sideshow, would be to once again consider abandoning that pesky filibuster. I know...Mitch McConnell shivers at the thought. But Democrats under Harry Reid never seemed to have a problem setting it aside. It's time for Mitch to oblige, pass these through the Senate, and put some teeth back into our federal immigration law that's been ignored for far too many years. Do it for Kate!
WT: The smiling visage of Kathryn Steinle, tragically murdered while standing beside her father on a San Francisco pier, is well-known. Known nationally as well is that the illegal alien who shot her was a criminal with a long rap sheet, who had traveled illegally to the United States on multiple occasions, and had been arrested and repatriated to Mexico only to return to America to resume his criminal activity, including on that tragic day when he stole an unguarded weapon from a Bureau of Land Management agent and shot Ms. Steinle. All the while, he was protected by San Francisco’s elected officials and law enforcement authorities who proudly proclaim their city a “sanctuary” for illegal aliens.
The single most consequential piece of legislation his administration will consider is being debated in the Senate this week, and the president of the United States saw fit to use his bully pulpit to insult a pair of unserious liberal journalists instead of advance his agenda. ...
A short while ago, the president tweeted about Jamiel Shaw. Shaw's son was murdered by an illegal immigrant in 2008. Shaw’s family deserves justice, and the American people deserve the protection of law against illegal immigrant crime.
Today, the House votes on two crucial bills:
☑️#NoSanctuaryForCriminalsAct
☑️#KatesLaw
☑️Pass these bills & lets MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/kTsCQOQ8Pz
This tweet will for the most part be ignored because of the juvenile insults President Trump tweeted just before it. Jamiel Shaw’s story will be overshadowed by Mika Brzezinski’s. GOP lawmakers will be issuing words of condemnation for the president rather than congratulations for the good work his administration is doing to make America safe again.
The president of the United States should not be the enemy of his own agenda. If the president wants to remain in office in 2020, if he truly wants to keep his promises and make America great again, he needs to get over himself and get back to work for the American people.
Back from vacation, so wanted to quickly review a few things this week. And with an assist from ConservativeReview and Levin, this got the week rolling...
CR: Tuesday morning, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin’s new book “Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism” debuted at #1 on Amazon. Levin joined the hosts of “Fox & Friends” to discuss his new book and give some thoughts on the Supreme Court decisions announced Monday.
Levin reacted favorably to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to reinstate most of President Trump’s temporary immigration order, before diving in to his new book.
“The idea that a judge, or even the justices, can substitute their opinions for the reality that a president sees is absurd,” Levin said. “I would say this to the court: ‘You got it 90 percent right, now butt out of this issue. It’s none of your business and just because you’re justices, it doesn’t mean you know everything.’”
Speaking of his new book, Levin warned, “We ignore academics and intellectuals at our own peril, because it is they who decide what kind of politics we’re going to have.”
“So what I’ve tried to do here, and what I have done here, is I’ve dug into our own foundational principles. We deal with it on the surface; we talk about liberty and property – well, what does all that mean and where does all that come from?”
“This book isn’t going to change the world, but if it changes a few minds, or opens a few eyes, that’s a very, very important thing.”
The Epilogue to Rediscovering Americanism can be found here.
If you're like me, the ad nauseam lib networks' Russia repeats are sounding like Jan complaining about Marcia! However, their constant conniving may be catching up to them. Let's back up to another presidential tweet to get the gears turning. (no, not that one, this one!)
President Trump finally hit upon something that Levin's been asking for WEEKS now...
By the way, if Russia was working so hard on the 2016 Election, it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn't they stop them?
...which was caught by an eagle NBC eye, who actually followed the logic.
This is not a bad question, actually. Another one is, why didn't the Obama administration level with the public about what they knew? https://t.co/gHxQ4J58GP
You follow the reasonable presumption, right? If the Obama admin knew about it, they weren't gonna say anything at the time when the newsters had Hillary on top of the polls. That would've harmed her by giving Trump ammunition (you know, the guy who was already yelling 'rigged!'). And we all know that a Democratic national election victory is far more important than national security or sovereignty!
To further the point, former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz admits the Obama intel community did nothing to help them, never asked for their servers, and let the Russians own the DNC network for more than a year! Guffaw!
No wonder journalist Nicholas Kristof (who outs himself as a Democrat operative in the process, btw, oh mon dieu) is calling out the Obama admin, suggesting it needs to be investigated as well!
Uh, ya think?! Only when the media's interested enough to cut to the truth of the matter instead of advancing a leftist witch-hunt because their candidate didn't win. Hey, mine didn't either, and the argument could be made that it's showing. But this vengeful collusion did not occur incessantly, day after day, for the months following Obama's election (we were too busy defending ourselves from being called Racist! whenever we civilly and constitutionally disagreed with policies).
A word to Republicans: walk and chew gum at the same time for crying out loud! While you're holding hearings on Capitol Hill, why not call on several of these Obama admin guys and gals to testify? Just ask them!
Aside from that, this crap has chewed up more time and taken more precedence than what we were told was gonna be the driving agenda. How about getting IT done without the delays, distractions or deceptions? (yes, I'm talking about Obamacare repeal, the Wall, tax reform, the whole enchilada!)
'Til then, might as well tune out the brunt of broadcast media, 'cause most of what we'll continue to get is more Russia, Russia, Russia!
The number one reason that Republicans took control of the Congress, Senate and the Presidency is because of the problems caused by Obamacare. Why would Republicans think that repealing Obamacare would not be popular? The bill that Senate Republicans are putting forward is 95% Obamacare and is a joke. The McConnell-care bill is so weak that even Jonathan Gruber, a chief architect of Obamacare agrees that it is not a repeal. We never move in the direction of free market capitalism, of choice, and liberty. We seem bound in the box the left has made for us. ~ MLS,6/22/17
You better believe Levin had something to say about McConnell's RINOcare mess...and he invited Horowitz to help discuss...
Daniel Horowitz calls in to explain that the Republican healthcare plan is not even Obamacare 2.0 or Obamacare lite but keeps the core pillars of Obamacare. We get the crony capitalism of the private sector lobbyists and government interference all together. McConnell said he was going to rip Obamacare out root and branch, but what he really meant was that he was going to take it out of the Democrat field and replant it on the Republican side. The real difference is Democrats want Obamacare funded with tax increases and Republicans want it funded with deficit spending. This plan will be the biggest driver of deficit spending.
Republicans have agreed to the fundamental progressive premise that government involvement is necessary in health care, Horowitz said. And almost as bad, the politics are terrible, because the Democrats get several talking points that they will weaponize against Republicans in the next election.
This path only leads one place, Horowitz and Levin agreed – to single-payer health care.
Republicans think free-market principles are fine in the abstract, but when push comes to shove, they surrender. “It’s an amazing thing,” Levin said.
So, folks, instead of 'Repeal and Replace' that every GOP candidate campaigned on, we're given Republican-owned insolvency?! It's political suicide. In an attempt to appease everyone, because the party doesn't know who it is or what it stands for anymore, they're screwing us all.
It's time for conservatives to bow out of this excrement, and come up with a Repeal, Reset, Reform plan of their own: Repeal the entirety of this Obamacare monstrocity, Reset the system to pre-Obamacare health care & insurance, then Reform the whole system with free market solutions, which we've discussed ad nauseam, predating this government-run garbage. ADDENDUM: Levin later reflected on the much bigger ideological problem...
...the ideology of Statism appears in many ways like healthcare, education, immigration, and even our governing system. It is a bulldozer that plows over our institutions. You are not free to have the healthcare you want in this society as an individual, because the only way you can be free in the statist mentality is among the collective. The left believe you can only be free by way of the government. That means that the government has to make things equal and eliminate risks which of course it can’t. True freedom includes the unalienable rights of the individual.
But this sadly appears to be the adopted direction of our supposed representation on the right as well. Is this what you believe? If not, then let them know.
Well, McConnell released his staffers' 'draft bill' of Obamacare-lite today and as expected, POS!
TRS: Legislative wizard Daniel Horowitz has been pouring through new Senate healthcare bill and doesn’t really like anything he sees. He’s been tweeting his thoughts and I’ve posted them down below for you to digest:
The bill keeps Obamacare (regs, subsidies, medicaid expansion) but repeals the funding mechanisms (taxes, mandates). more insolvent
And those are just the first 3 out of 22 tweets! Here's a couple others that had me shaking my head with the same 'what the hell are they thinking' sentiment...
Putting policy and conservative principles aside for a moment, once could not possibly craft a worse political suicide than #HealthcareBill
Sen. Cruz: "...as currently drafted, this bill draft does not do nearly enough to lower premiums. That should be the central issue for Republicans – repealing Obamacare and making healthcare more affordable. Because of this, I cannot support it as currently drafted, and I do not believe it has the votes to pass the Senate."
Now you know precisely why these conservative Senators must announce their opposition to the bill: It’s the only way to force these deadbeat RINOs to make the bill BETTER! And it should be more than just these four. If it doesn't even fix the underlying problems with healthcare cost, then what's the damn point, McConnell? Republicans, we need more than window dressing in this new administration. Less government; more free market. We need ACTION in REAL REFORM!
DW: So, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has done precisely what everyone expected: he has unveiled a watered-down version of the already weak House Republican Trumpcare bill. The bill is actually so weak that even Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber is chortling that it doesn’t actually repeal Obamacare.
That’s because it doesn’t.
That doesn’t mean that every provision is bad. It does mean that the bill does little or nothing to lower premiums, undermines the solvency of insurance companies, and makes changes to Medicaid so far down the road that they may never materialize.
Here’s what you need to know:
The Bill Retains Obamacare’s Core Regulatory Scheme.
The Bill Re-Enshrines Subsidies to Insurance Companies.
The Bill Provides New Entitlements For Middle-Income Americans.
The Bill Dramatically Alters Medicaid…Down The Road.
The Bill Defunds Planned Parenthood…For One Year.
The Individual Mandate And Taxes Disappear.
As always, once Republicans accept the political premise of Democratic policy, they merely become Democrats in disguise. The biggest problem here is that by owning Democrat-lite policy, that disguise is ripped away, and Republicans will now be blamed for whatever comes next.
Already, several conservative senators including Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Ron Johnson (R-WI) have said they cannot support this bill. It remains to be seen whether Republicans will cave to public pressure the way so many House conservatives did, or whether they actually demand repeal.
FYI, that sixth bulletpoint would be good, except that by retaining Obamacare’s regulations and getting rid of the mandate, the Republican plan exacerbates the Obamacare death spiral!
CR: After weeks of closed-door congressional cat herding, Senate leadership’s, super-duper top-secretObamacare bill is going to make its grand debut this Thursday morning, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on Tuesday.
Making the case that forthcoming legislative efforts will be “transparent as could be” and blaming Democrats for his party’s secrecy, McConnell also said Tuesday that senators will have “plenty of time” to read the bill before a long-anticipated vote on the measure which could come as early as next week.
That piece goes on to discuss how Sen. Mike Lee has been frustrated with how the details of the measure have been thus far kept under lock and key...
“I haven’t seen [the bill] yet, either,” Lee says in the post, “even though I’ve been a member of this working group among Senate Republicans, assigned to help narrow some of the focus of this.”
“Even though we thought we were going to be in charge of writing a bill in this working group, it’s not being written by us,” the senator continued. “It’s apparently being written by a small handful of staffers for members of the Republican leadership in the Senate.”
“So, if you’re frustrated by the lack of transparency in this process, I share your frustration,” Lee said. “The American people need and deserve to be able to see legislation as it moves through the Senate.”
Rest assured, he's not alone. So then, why the secrecy? And what's been the hold up? Why is the GOP struggling so much to repeal Obamacare?
WE:It's almost July and the Republican Party has yet to repeal Obamacare due to divisions within its own ranks. Everything that we thought we knew about the GOP suggests that this should not be the case.
What explains this sudden change in the policy views of Republicans? One explanation is that party affiliation is not as important as previously thought in explaining member behavior once in office. But far from suggesting that parties don't matter, the GOP's present struggles demonstrate that parties matter in a different way. Obamacare's fate ultimately depends on how Republicans view their party.
Suggesting that opposition to Obamacare is an important part of the GOP's political identity would be an understatement. Calls to repeal the law have featured prominently in the party's platform since 2010. Republican candidates at every level have campaigned on an unambiguous repeal message. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2013, then-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declared, "Obamacare should be repealed root and branch."
And after finally gaining control of Congress for the first time since Obamacare passed, Republicans turned to a special process known as reconciliation to circumvent a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and repeal the law's major provisions. While President Barack Obama vetoed that measure in early 2016, Trump's victory in the presidential election later that year restored Republican hopes that their seven-year crusade against the law would finally end in victory.
Looking back, such optimism appears to have been unfounded. Five months have passed since Trump's inauguration and Obamacare is still the law of the land. Republican hopes for a quick victory have given way to the realization that progress on this front is going to be a long, hard slog. The GOP's "repeal" legislation, the American Health Care Act, barely passed the House on its second attempt. And Republicans are struggling to pass a watered-down version of the measure in the Senate.
In other words, while a policy-centric view of the party suggests that their majority should be able to easily repeal Obamacare, the candidate-centric view suggests that they aren't interested in detailed policy work for its own sake or on behalf of their constituent's interests; so instead of winning elections to formulate policies, they formulate policies to win elections. Broken down even further, they care more about whether they're jeopardizing their future electoral success over crafting policies that unravel the Leviathan and maximize liberty for the American people.
And this is how Washington functions, or doesn't, when we send the same unprincipled people back time and time again, particularly in leadership positions, expecting them to act in our best interest. So is it time for the handful of conservatives on Capitol Hill to jump ship from this phony Obamacare 'repeal'?
CR: Some of us tried very hard. Some of us have tried to repeal Obamacare and repeal and replace the GOP politicians who had no intentions of fulfilling their promises for six years. But they won.
It’s very clear that Senate Republicans and the president have no understanding of what Obamacare actually is and isn’t and that they have no intention of repealing it. No good will come out of conservatives putting their name on an unpopular bill that “fixes” Obamacare under the guise of repealing it. Whatever the intentions until now, it is abundantly clear that for individual conservatives, such as Ted Cruz and Mark Meadows, working in good faith to salvage a modicum of Obamacare repeal, we have now reached the point of no return. We stand at the moment when Moses told the congregation, “Please get away from the tents of these wicked men, and do not touch anything of theirs, lest you perish because of all their sins” (Numbers 17:26).
Right after Republicans won the election, we laid out a strategy for immediately repealing Obamacare with a transition period, so that the default position would always be the repeal of Obamacare and so that consumers would get a sense of what premiums would look like after the leviathan was slain. We also proposed a 20-point blueprint for free market health care reforms to be subsequently pursued once Obamacare was repealed.
Yet from day one, Republicans refused to repeal Obamacare, adopted the messaging and talking points of Obamacare under the guise of repealing it, and therefore made the law more popular than ever despite it failing before our very eyes. The bill that came out of the House was already a dismal failure and barely repealed the core elements of Obamacare – the regulations, subsidies, and Medicaid expansion – but some conservatives, in a view I didn’t share, felt that it was the only way to get the ball moving, in hopes that the legislation would improve in the Senate.
Now that the bill has come to the Senate, senators have taken an excrement sandwich and turned it into maggot-covered vomit. After all, Senate Republicans make House Republicans look like the Founders. While the text is still behind closed doors, the contours of the bill were set a long time ago. Legislators are taking each element of the bill – regulations, Medicaid expansion, subsidies, and mandates – and making them more liberal. Now, they might even keep some of the taxes (the only component they consistently opposed) in order to pay for the other elements. They have dropped any pretense of repealing Obamacare and are all about “fixing” it with even more subsidies and just converting the mandates to back-door requirements to purchase health insurance. Until now, I was wondering where the president has been. Why was he not giving the Senate RINOs the same Twitter treatment for obstructing the House bill as he did the House Freedom Caucus? Now, according to an AP report of a private conversation the president had with some of those very RINOS, it’s clear that Trump agrees with the RINOs. At the same time he says Obamacare is a disaster and must be repealed, he believes that even the House version, which barely repeals the law, is “too mean.” Evidently, we need even more government control over health care … and that is exactly what we are getting with the Senate bill.
Conservatives have an important decision to make, specifically those who are supposedly a part of this crafting panel. Either they box in their conservative colleagues by supporting an unpopular bill that makes Obamacare great again, or they jump ship and land on their own two feet. Either way, Obamacare is not being repealed, so why get tainted by something they no longer believe in? Why make it harder for other colleagues to oppose this nonsense? After all, what are conservatives getting in return? Appears as only lip service, broken promises and abandoned principle, and that's just not worth it.
Wow, looks like a liberty win for free speech that both sides ALL AMERICANS should be able to celebrate...
NBCNews:The federal government cannot refuse to grant protection to trademarks that some consider offensive, the U.S. Supreme court ruled Monday.
The decision is a victory for members of an Asian-American rock band who call themselves “The Slants.” Organizer Simon Tam said the name is intended “to take on stereotypes that people have about us, like the slanted eyes, and own them.”
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused in 2011 to grant the name government protection, citing a federal law that forbids issuing trademarks that may disparage people “or bring them into contempt or disrepute.”
But in a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court said that law violates free expression.
The ruling is also a boost for the Washington Redskins of the NFL, because it will undoubtedly require the government to restore the trademark protection taken away from the team in 2014 after a finding that it was offensive to Native Americans.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears trademark cases, ruled that making decisions about which trademarks might be disparaging amounts to improper viewpoint discrimination by the government, “in order to stifle the use of certain disfavored messages.”
The Supreme Court decision upheld that ruling.
I've already seen arguments for this but against that. My response to those are simple: The First Amendment assures that you CAN have it both ways! And the Supreme Court rightly for a change ruled as such for liberty's sake.
"You have a successful businessman who's not allowed to be President of the United States. First they attack the electoral college...now they're trying to use the emoluments clause. Then they claim collusion with the Russians. Now they're running around talking about obstruction of justice. The Democrat Party is doing more damage to this country than the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Iranians, COMBINED. The leadership of the Democrat Party has a hate-on for this country like I've never seen before." ~ Mark Levin, 6/12/17
If it hasn't become obvious enough by now for you, what we're seeing week after week of a new, non-Democrat administration is one barrier after another being constructed by both political left and mainstream media alike to halt what might potentially be a pro-American agenda if allowed, simply because Democrats refuse to lose gracefully. Obama's out, Hillary was defeated, and congressional Democrats are now in the minority; yet, we're still feeling the insatiable influence daily. If they can't have all the power, then nothing can be allowed to function or, to use a favorite word of theirs, progress. There's the stark definition of collusion! It's beyond aggravating that far too many short-sighted Republicans on the Hill are chasing their tails around this distractive crap, instead of multitasking through it to get the work of the People done this legislative year.
On Friday’s Mark Levin show, From the beginning the focus has been on the wrong thing and the wrong people. The Democrats and Hillary Clinton and the media have concocted a scandal. A scandal that has suggested that Donald Trump and his surrogates were colluding with the Russians during the 2016 election. That is a truly incredible allegation with no facts whatsoever. The Russians did interfere with America’s 2016 election, but we have been focusing on the right problem and the wrong people. What in the world did Trump have to do with that? Nothing. Barack Obama was President in 2016. Loretta Lynch was Attorney General in 2016. They were responsible for protecting our nation, our voting system, the DNC & RNC database from the Russians, and they didn’t. They failed! The Left is running a massive smear campaign to cover the epic failures of the Obama administration. This was all happening while the administration was conducting domestic surveillance. The Democrats go on and on, but what did Mark Warner and Adam Schiff do to protect us from the Russians? Nothing. The Russian hacking only became an issue after Hillary Clinton lost. The Democrats are just trying to blame Trump for what happened on their watch. When are Republicans on Capitol Hill going to focus on the right thing? They need to forget about the media and the hate mongers.
On Monday’s Mark Levin show, The leftists think they found the part of the Constitution they like when they look at the Emoluments Clause. Now we have Attorneys General from D.C. and Maryland who are suing President Trump for supposedly flagrantly violating this clause of the Constitution. Trump is not receiving compensation form foreign governments or receiving gifts from foreign governments. However, Democrats are prepared to do this because this is a PR ploy and they are hoping to find an activist judge to back them. This is such a broad view of the Emoluments Clause that it would include Barak Obama’s book, “Dreams of My Fathers”, being bought by foreign public libraries.
Republicans, President Trump included, at over 140 days into a new presidency and congressional majority, it's time to walk and chew gum at the same time for crying out loud. Deal with this muck and move the agenda forward, preferably in a conservative direction (I know, I'm asking a lot). Otherwise, squandered will be the word to describe this year's lack of achievement.
“D-Day is an important time to honor those from the past who bravely fought for freedom. But it can also be a time to assess and reflect on the lessons it might hold.”
Today marks the 73rd anniversary of the D-Day invasion, the largest seaborne assault in world history. On June 6, 1944, Allied troops stormed the beaches of Normandy and turned the tide of World War II. We commemorate and honor those brave soldiers who sacrificed all to put an end to the evil of the day...
It's worth reflecting on the lessons of such bravery and sacrifice in the face of extraordinary peril, particularly as we currently confront the evils of our day. And former Marine and military historian Morgan Deane does just that...
OpsLens: Military historian Victor David Hanson wondered if the Xbox generation could storm the beaches of Normandy like their grandparents did. With tweets that massacre the English language and an unhealthy obsession with the Kardashians, those fears seem grounded. But historical memory of the current generation often looks on the past with rose colored glasses while thinking that their young people are uniquely positioned to herald the end of the world. The current soldiers serving around the world have shown they are capable of difficult feats and great deeds to the point that Americans shouldn’t compare their soldiers to the greatest generation and fear.
The matters of policy are different. The reaction to the most recent terror attack is simply the last in a long line of events. London Bridge, Manchester, Paris, Nice, San Bernardino, Orlando…the list goes on and on about events, yet there is little actual discussion of solid measures to prevent these attacks. These attacks happen with such frequency and Ground Hog Day like repetition I’ve thought about simply recycling old pieces about the need for productive dialogue.
Because of political correctness many politicians often fear instituting measures that will target likely terrorist groups. (Hint: They tend to share certain religious and ethnic features.) The politicians squabble and try to score short term political points against each other. British politicians debate the number of police on the streets while anybody who advocates anti-extremist measures is called a bigot.
Trump makes a valid point about the need for extreme vetting of immigrants, and most of the media would rather cover his twitter feud with the London mayor. In short, I’m extremely concerned that the nations which launched the D-Day invasion, Britain, Canada, and America, no longer have the will to make and execute very hard decisions. Eisenhower was prepared to accept blame for the slaughter of thousands of soldiers, while modern politicians flinch at being called a bad name.
D-Day is an important time to honor those from the past who bravely fought for freedom. But it can also be a time to assess and reflect on the lessons it might hold. Our soldiers remain brave, but the politicians who formulate anti-terrorism policies are much less so.
It may not be nice or neat to address (nor offensive to do so), but the heroes we honor today didn't sacrifice all for the same Allied nations to then hand over each of their assimilated cultural identities 73 years later to the throes of invasion, balkanization, indoctrination or terror, either foreign or domestic. Speaking for Americans as a fourth generation citizen (that's post-Civil War for those keeping up), it's time to lift the fantasy-laden veil of what melting pot actually means (hint: it's not anyone, anywhere, no questions asked; it's about liberty, contribution, virtuous citizenship, E pluribus unum!).
With reins in hand, Republicans choose distraction over action, and once again check out on Obamacare repeal...
TheResurgent: If you’re wondering whatever happened to the Republican health care reform bill, you are not alone. When we last heard from the American Health Care Act, House Republican leaders were waiting on the Congressional Budget Office to score the bill before submitting the legislation passed in the House to the Senate. The CBO scored the bill in late May, but the silence from the Republican ranks has been deafening. The congressional website does not show any action on the bill since it passed the House on May 4.
Readers of The Resurgent are aware that the Republican health care bill falls short of full repeal. Senate rules require 60 votes for cloture on a repeal bill and Republicans would not be able to find eight Democrats to join them in ending a Democrat filibuster. Even if Republicans eliminated the filibuster entirely, they would not have enough votes for full repeal because at least four Republicans have pledged to oppose a repeal bill that does not provide for a phase out of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.
Now some Republicans are saying that it is doubtful that they will be able to pass even an incomplete health care reform bill. ...
I'll skip all the sorry-ass excuses from the likes of Burr and Flake, and even Johnson. You can go back and read those if you'd like. But if the Republican Party doesn't stop kneecapping itself, then they're squandering more than an opportunity here...
The fundamental problem is that conservative and moderate Republicans do not agree how to handle various aspects of the health care issue. Although Republicans have been united in their desire to repeal and replace Obamacare since the day it was passed, they disagree on the details of what should come next.
In the eight years since Obamacare became law, Republicans such as Tom Price, formerly a Georgia congressman and now Secretary of Health and Human Services, have written legislation to repeal Obamacare and reform the health insurance industry, but the party has not coalesced around any single bill. When Donald Trump eked out a squeaker of a victory in the Electoral College, Republicans were caught flat-footed and did not have a plan for how to exploit his victory. Indications were that, as late as early February, Republicans had not even started writing an Obamacare reform bill. The Senate considers the House bill dead on arrival and is writing its own version of health care reform, which may be available as early as this week.
President Trump’s antics are also hurting the possibility of passing a health care bill. The investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible connections with Russia and the firing of FBI Director James Comey are distractions that make it even more difficult to find a compromise that is acceptable to all GOP factions. The president showed leadership in the fight to pass the AHCA in the House, but has largely been missing-in-action on the issue in the month since the House vote. ...
Repeal of Obamacare has been the centerpiece of the Republican platform since 2010. The fact that repeal is not possible, even with Republican majorities in Congress and a Republican president, is not going to please most Republican voters. If the new Republican administration leaves Obamacare completely intact, it may well face a mutiny from the grass roots.
Ya think?! I've said it before, inevitably to repeat again: power is fleeting.
I'm certain there's legitimate arguments and substantive rationale to be made as to why President Trump should tamp down the Twitter usage. I know it's crossed my mind more than once. But...doesn't he have a point here?
The FAKE MSM is working so hard trying to get me not to use Social Media. They hate that I can get the honest and unfiltered message out.
I suppose if the media wasn't a bastion of Democratic propagandists hell-bent on a rabidly leftist agenda, and we could actually trust their reporting as truly objective journalism, then sure. But let's be honest with ourselves: the media relinquishing their biases is not even less likely to occur, but it simply won't happen while a Republican president resides in the White House. So, President Trump will continue tweeting, for better or for worse.
They say sacré bleu, we say adieu!Keeping a campaign promise, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the disaster of that phony Paris Climate Accord...
On Thursday’s Mark Levin show, The President’s speech on the Paris climate accord was magnificent, simple and directed straight at the American people, who now understand the devastating effect the Paris agreement would have had on their livelihoods. The real goal of progressives supporting the Paris accords was not to reverse climate change. It was to use the power of government to redistribute wealth. Climate change is not what really is going on here. For 100 years or more there has been a movement in this country to destroy the Republic and the civil society. They call themselves progressives. They are iron fisted tyrants in many respects and they are really regressive. The left wrap themselves in populist language but there model is authoritarianism and threats. The environmental movement is part of an ideological movement, just like healthcare.
If you're interested, here's more truth on the matter...
This is the kind of action that garners the President a coalescence of support from the base, unlike other delays. It's important to keep the encouragement up when the guy gets it right, just don't hesitate to let conservative voices be heard when the contrary occurs.
