Sunday, May 20, 2018

The Farm Bill : Subside Are Wrong And Wasteful

The Farm Bill Needs reform, a rewrite.
The farm bill is serious need of reform. It seeped in subsides that are terribly outdated and wasteful and targeting a very small minority of farms for help even when they don't need it.

I think it might be about dollars flowing into the pockets of politicians who have ''mega frames'' in their districts.

In reality, nearly everything today is all about politics and therefore most everything in government is corrupt and wasteful. The farm bill would be a good place to start the process.

Why this is still a topic that finds many to become exercised is puzzling, even with the flowing of campaign funding. There are so few contributors able to make contributions makes good sense now for everyone, the majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle need  to step up to the plate and do the right thing. Will they? Miracles do happen but don't hold your breath.

Q&A: Farm Bill Policies Benefit Wealthy Farmers, Hurt Taxpayers
Daren Bakst / / Katrina Trinko / / Daniel Davis / /

The Heritage Foundation’s Daren Bakst appeared on The Daily Signal podcast on Wednesday to discuss the farm bill. Here is a lightly edited transcript of that conversation.

Katrina Trinko: The House is expected to vote on the farm bill this Friday. Now, the farm bill is actually a pretty huge bill. It includes both funding for food stamps and agriculture issues. But here to talk about the agricultural issues is Daren Bakst, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Daren, thanks for joining us today.

Bakst: Thanks. It’s great to be here.

Trinko: Daren, why should conservatives care about the farm bill? If you’re not a farmer, why does this matter?

Bakst: Well, first of all, on the farm subsidy side, it costs a lot of money. The farm subsidies cost about $15 billion a year and on top of that, when you subsidize something you distort the decisions that are being made by farmers. So instead of responding to what the market wants in terms of crops and food, they respond to the subsidies. And logically that makes sense. If you’re going to subsidize something the farmer is going to farm [for] the subsidy instead of farming to meet the consumer demands.

The other problem is there’s a lot of concern about people being able to get into farming and what happens is the subsidies will actually lead to driving up land prices when the biggest obstacles to getting into farming is land. So what’s ironic is that the subsidies actually wind up creating barriers for new people to get into the farming.

And what does Congress do? They create new programs to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get people into farming. So we create a program to solve a problem that created in the first place.

Daniel Davis: So what do these subsidies look like for farmers? Is it just a bag of money to go and do X, Y, and Z? Whatever Congress wants you to grow in your farm?

Bakst: Well, there are two different types of commodity programs. There’s what’s called Title 1, which is a bunch of price supports and all kinds of commodity programs that help farmers when prices get too low or they don’t meet their expected revenue. That also includes the sugar program as well—[which] is a very egregious program where the government is literally intentionally trying to drive up sugar prices by limiting how much sugar can be sold. It is the very antithesis of what a conservative should be.

Then on the other side you have the Federal Crop Insurance Program and there taxpayers pay about 62 percent of the premiums for the crop insurance policies. So farmers only pay a third of the premiums. That would be nice if that’s how my auto insurance worked and taxpayers paid two-thirds.

Between the commodity programs and the crop insurance that’s where really the heart of the alleged so-called safety net is. I think it’s really important for people to recognize that almost all the farm program support goes to just six commodities. So the Congressional Research Service came out with a report and said that 94 percent of farm program support went to just six commodities—corn, wheat, rice, soy beans, cotton, and peanuts—and they only account for about 28 percent of the production.

In other words, almost all of agriculture and almost all commodities and most farmers aren’t getting subsidies or they get very little. So really what the safety net and the subsidies are doing is you’re getting multiple programs going to a handful of farmers who are growing a handful of commodities.

And the question is: Why do they need subsidies when almost everybody else in agriculture doesn’t?

Trinko: So obviously the farm plays a pretty pivotal role in American history. I think we all look back in the family farm. We’ve now got all these millennials getting married in barns. Why does it not make sense at this point in time to keep these subsidies going?

Bakst: Well, in the 1940s, farm subsidies were actually designed to be a social welfare program as well as a kind of help because at that time farm households had real deep poverty. They had half the household income of other households in the U.S. So it acted as a social welfare program, but right now it’s definitely not a social welfare program. Farm households [have] much greater income and much great wealth than non-farm households.

In fact, about a third of the commodity subsidies go to what are called large family farms … [where] their farm household income is about three times the median income for all households.

Trinko: You say $347,000 was [their median household income]?

Bakst: It was $347,000. And their wealth is about $3.8 million and it’s about 39 times the median wealth of all U.S. households. And these are farms that are getting a lot of the subsidies.

So certainly not a welfare program. I want farmers to be wealthy, have all kinds of great … all kinds of income. But when you hear kind of the sob stories and these myths that get thrown out to try to justify subsidies it’s important to bring out who’s actually getting the subsidies.

Davis: So those who advocate for these subsidies say that without them farmers will suffer and they’ll go under and we need them to stay in the long run. So given the subsidies it sounds like what you’re saying is that’s just not the case.

Bakst: What’s interesting is if that’s the case we wouldn’t have … What about the livestock producers who get little to those subsidies? Or the [farmers of] specialty crops or fruit, nuts, vegetables.

So most of agriculture production, like I said, aren’t getting much in terms of subsidies. So if that argument is true, they wouldn’t have really exist or wouldn’t be growing anything. To me that’s one of the easiest arguments against that argument you just made.

But the truth is, I think there’s this assumption that farmers are just not capable of operating the marketplace like anybody else. But the reality is they’re very sophisticated business people. We shouldn’t insult them by thinking that they need these handouts in order to compete. The reality is they don’t. They’re very innovative and they would succeed fine without the subsidies.

But it’s important to note that right now while I would like to see us move away from subsidies, the reform ideas that exist right now are not to get rid of everything all at once, but to start moving away from it.

There are just some commonsense reforms out there that really wouldn’t have that much of an impact on farmers, but would have a big impact on taxpayers and consumers.

Trinko: So what would some of those reforms be?

Bakst: Well, I think one reform is … I was talking about the Crop Insurance Program before and the fact that taxpayers pay about 62 percent of the premiums for those. Well, reduce that to about half.

I don’t think it’s a lot to ask for farmers to pay half of their premiums and that would save … If you reduce it by 15 percent, [that would result in savings of] about $9 billion over 10 years. So significant savings. It would have almost no impact on farmers.

So [the Congressional Budget Office] analyzed the impact of reducing the premium subsidy that I was talking about, like 15 percent. So there’s 300 million insured acres. By adopting that reform it would reduce the insured acres by half of 1 percent, so you’d have 298.5 million insured acres.

Come on. I mean it’s an obvious commonsense reform. President [Donald] Trump included it in his fiscal year 2019 budget. President [Barack] Obama has talked about reducing premium subsidies in his budgets. [The Government Accountability Office] identified it. CBO has identified it. So reform on the left and the right that pretty much everybody supports … It’s just indefensible not to adopt something like that.

Trinko: The farm bill that is coming for a vote doesn’t include it, right?

Bakst: The farm bill in its current form doesn’t. There is an amendment that’s been introduced … We’ll have to see. It’s playing out right now what amendments would be considered.

So that’s one key reform. There are a couple of others. I should point out the sugar program, for example. The sugar program intentionally restricts supply of sugar. It drives up prices. You’ll hear that it’s a no-cost program, which is funny because what they’re saying is that it’s … no cost to taxpayers even though it is to some extent.

But it’s about $3.7 billion cost to consumers every year. It is … a real cost, significant cost to the industries that use sugar, which are much bigger and employ a lot more people than the folks that are the sugar growers and producers.

So we’re hurting these industries that use sugar and we’re hurting consumers. But I think what’s really important is that … if you want to identify one policy in the farm bill that hurts the poor, this is one of those policies right here because when you drive up food prices it has a disproportionate impact on low-income households because they spend a greater share of their income on food. So it’s basically a hidden regressive tax on consumers and particularly, it hurts the low-income households.

Davis: Is there any amendment to reverse that to reform that?

Bakst: Yeah. There is … I would have liked to see an amendment to get rid of the sugar program, but there’s an amendment to reform it. And it would get rid of these supply controls that limit how much sugar can be sold. It doesn’t … There are still restrictions on imports as well that still remain in place, so it’s not perfect, but at least it moves in the right direction.

Governemnt Above the Law : No Justice - No Law

Government caught but escapes justice.
''Oh what a web we weave when we first try to deceive'' Sadly this is not just a saying from the dim past but a all to scary present reality.

What appears to be a coordinated attack on a sitting president by this countries highest and most respected security organization has been found to be nothing more then an enemy of the people.

As a result we have to understand we must be very concerned as to who and what they will target next.

I believe it is common knowledge all of those who participated in the illegal attempt to destroy a sitting president will not suffer any consequence for their collective behavior which is unprecedented and criminal according to our Constitution.

Still, with our justice system in freefall, we the people must be very careful and understand this behavior might be the new normal, the people huddling in fear of our government.

Colleges In Conflict with Civil Society : She Gives Thesis In Her Underwear.

Interesting situation where the new narrative of  'we are the world and we can do and say anything we want and everyone must accept us as we demand'. And the scary part is many in positions of power in our colleges and  universities do accept this ludicrous behavior as normal.

Understand what has happened, common sense and civil society are found in conflict with the new morality that rejects ethics as a precursor to being a member of the human race, living in harmony with the rest of the society where each respects common values as founded by historical events over generations of people living together for the greater good. 

Luckily, most of the participants in this absurd demonstration of ignorance and abysmal hypocrisy will not carry this into real life. They have to know instinctively this will not pass the test out in the real world of living and working in a civil society.

They know, at least I hope they know, if they decided on the day they go for a job interview to show up in their underwear, it won't go well for them.

Muted Reaction to Student Presenting Thesis in Her Underwear Shows Corruption of Our Colleges
Dennis Prager / /

The most remarkable thing about the title of this column [“Cornell Student Presents Thesis in Her Underwear”] is that not one reader will think it’s a joke. That, my friends, is further proof of the low esteem in which most Americans hold our universities. The left has rendered our universities, in the description of Harvard professor Steven Pinker, laughingstocks.

As reported in The Cornell Daily Sun and then around the world, this is what actually happened last week at Cornell University, one of our “Ivy League” universities: Senior Letitia Chai presented a trial run of her scholar senior thesis wearing a blue button-down shirt and cutoff jean shorts. Her professor, Rebekah Maggor, asked her, “is that really what you would wear?”

The professor went on to say that Chai’s shorts were “too short”—that as a speaker she was making a “statement” with her clothes. As reported in the newspaper, “The class does not have a formalized dress code, but asks students to ‘dress appropriately for the persona [they] will present.'”

Offended and hurt by the professor’s suggestion, Chai decided that she would present her thesis in even less clothing. She appeared before her fellow students in her shirt and shorts and then removed them. As she stripped down to a bra and panties, she explained:

''I am more than Asian. I am more than a woman. I am more than Letitia Chai. I am a human being, and I ask you to take this leap of faith, to take this next step—or rather, this next strip—in our movement and to join me in revealing to each other and to seeing each other for who we truly are: members of the human race. … We are so triumphant, but most importantly, we are equals.

Twenty-eight of the 44 audience members followed suit, stripping down. Chai’s presentation was livestreamed. It can still be seen on Facebook.

Eleven students who were present wrote a long statement defending both the professor—who apologized profusely—and Chai. It read:

''As students who firmly believe in the tenants [that Cornell students do not know the word is ‘tenets,’ not ‘tenants,’ is not surprising] of justice and the commitment to fair representation, we feel that it is our duty to make the following statement. We support Letitia’s commitment to the cause of women’s rights. … We strongly support and identify with Letitia’s fight for equality in the treatment of all people, regardless of race, gender, color, creed, sexuality, or appearance. The majority of us are students of color, from multiethnic backgrounds, who very much relate to Letitia’s frustration with systemic oppression that is part of the fabric of this country. … Our recollection of that day is as follows:

Letitia stood up to give her speech. Before she began, our professor asked Letitia if she would wear ‘those shorts’ to her actual presentation on Saturday. Our professor regularly asks all of the students, male and female, such questions to clarify appropriate attire for public speaking. Our professor went on to say that what you wear and how you present yourself make a statement. She noted that if you were to wear jean shorts to your thesis presentation, that is a statement. Her focus on attire was a means of noting the importance of professionalism in certain public speaking situations. … Throughout the semester … We have also had several meaningful dialogues on privilege, discussed how to avoid [white] savior narratives. … Our professor … often illustrates the ways to us in which society can institute a socialized behavior (for females, acting apologetic for opinions) due to systematic oppression.''

It’s hard to know which aspect of this story is the most ludicrous and the most disturbing. Is it the students stripping down to their underwear? That delivering a senior thesis in one’s underwear before fellow students, most of whom also stripped down, is acceptable—even honored—at Cornell University tells you just about all you need to know to understand the degraded state of Cornell and most other American universities. And if delivering a senior thesis in one’s underwear is a blow for women’s equality, why wear underwear? Why not deliver the thesis naked?

Is it the pervasive assumption of America’s “systemic oppression” of women and ethnic minorities? If there are luckier young women in the world than those who attend Cornell and other American universities, it is hard to imagine who they might be. Yet they have been so effectively indoctrinated by their left-wing instructors in elementary school, high school, and college they walk around thinking of themselves as victims of “systemic oppression” in what is probably the freest and most opportunity-giving society in human history.

Or is it the apparent absence of any criticism of Chai by even one of the 1,650 faculty members of Cornell University? It is inconceivable that even at Cornell, there is not one faculty member who found this young woman’s behavior an insult to Cornell and the once-exalted field of higher education. Yet they so fear their left-wing colleagues and left-wing students that they have said nothing.

This story reconfirms what I regularly tell parents: Sending your child to college is playing Russian roulette with their values.

Saturday, May 19, 2018

A Two Tiered Justice System : One For Us And One for Them - Hillary Skates

Of course there's nothing to see here, so just move along. The media and the progressive socialist liberal democrats have the situation well in hand. The democrat believe if they lie enough and proceed with that lie, the majority will begin to believe it's true.

It always worked before, so why not now? Oh wait, the unwashed have decided what democrats are pedaling is in deed a lie and voted in Donald Trump clean up the lies and hypocrisy.

Hope spring eternal that as the Trumpster moves ever forward with success, justice will actually rise to the surface after so many years we have suffered with Barrrack's abject criminal activity, all brought to us as it's just politics. tiered 

Will Hillary and her like go to jail? No, not a chance. Past history is dictate the events that will inevitably unfold in the near future where democrats always skate from criminal activity. Still a black mark will land on the guilty causing the voters to take note of the destruction to our civil society the democrats have caused our country with their presence.

They are criminals. They intend to do us harm and have done so with impunity. Never vote for a democrat again if you believe our country is worth saving.


What Is America's Greatest Threat? : Obedience And Depraved Conformity

And if you didn't already know the real threat to our country wasn't the Russians, this below illustrates perfectly what is happening to cause the divide between common sense and those that are suffering from sever mental frustration and delusion.

Make no mistake, the progressive socialist liberals that have lost their power to control others is causing them to reel from blows of success that Trump is landing on them. Little wonder as time passes the screaming and arm waving can only increase and the hatful rhetoric more unbounded and vicious.

Know them for who they really are. Oh, and let's not forget, as I have stated on many other occasions here, the old democrat party is no longer a party of citizens, but a ''collective'' of willing vacuous tortured rent seekers waiting to take their place in the promised Valhalla where all things will be revealed as good and reasonable.  All that's required of you is obedience and conformity.

Now how bad can voting for a democrat be knowing their agenda and ideology?


Friday, May 18, 2018

California Citizens Take A Stand : WH Sanctuary Policy Supported

Maybe this is the answer to the problem of the crime of neglect and incompetence from leadership in California. That is, as a result, being all government officials in Sacramento, are sinister and depraved  progressive socialist liberal democrats. It stands to reason, right?

It's called a 'tipping point' where the common sense citizens have reached that point in time were they will no longer tolerate unscrupulous and immoral politicians, and now act to take a stand for law and order. They know if they don't do something to stop in the insanity, all will be lost. In truth ,it might be too late.

As long as that great state is controlled by only democrats, it's enviable that crime would be paramount in a state's leadership that is totally controlled by active unhinged criminals.

California Officials Back Trump on Crackdown on ‘Sanctuary’ Policies
Fred Lucas / /

California law enforcement and local officials gathered at the White House on Wednesday to make it clear that Sacramento doesn’t speak for them on illegal immigration.

The Democrat-controlled state Legislature passed and Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed a “sanctuary state” law that prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities on matters such as detaining illegal immigrants in local jails or reporting them.

California state Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, a Republican, praised President Donald Trump for holding the White House meeting, noting that Brown has not met with Republican officials.
“This is your Republican resistance right here,” Melendez told the president during the Cabinet Room meeting, obliquely referencing the “resist” movement among some Democrats and liberals dedicated to opposing Trump’s policies.

Seven mayors, four sheriffs and one deputy sheriff, two county supervisors, a city council member, and a district attorney—all from California—attended the White House meeting with the president and administration officials from the Justice and Homeland Security departments. Each expressed support for the administration’s tough immigration policies.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., also attended.

Trump said that opposition to “sanctuary” policies is not limited to Republicans, as the public has increasingly become concerned about crime committed by illegal immigrants. “We cannot let this butchery happen in America,” Trump said of violent crimes that illegal immigrant gangs commit in the United States.

The president also said that California has “sparked a rebellion” with its sanctuary laws.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, also in the meeting, has withheld some Justice Department grants from sanctuary jurisdictions across the country, and has sued California over its sanctuary state policy.

Trump also criticized Mexico for not helping stem the flow of illegal immigrants over the Mexico-U.S. border. “Mexico does nothing for us,” the president said. “Mexico talks, but they do nothing for us, especially at the border.”

Trump said his administration is stopping more illegal immigrants from entering the country, but isn’t satisfied with that. “Now, we do the best that we can,” he said. “We can do so much better.”

During the meeting, Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen exchanged compliments. “Thank you for your leadership, sir, and for bringing us all together,” Nielsen said.
“And you’re doing a good job,” Trump replied. “It’s not an easy job.”

Lassen County, California, District Attorney Stacey Montgomery said the illegal immigration problem has been exacerbated in part by the legalization of marijuana. A large number of illegal immigrants are marijuana growers, she said. “So, legalization made it worse,” she said. “I’ve been appalled.”

Tom Homan, the retiring acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, defended ICE agents from politicized attacks and praised Trump for taking strong positions. “I’ve worked for six presidents, and I respect them all, but no president has done more than you,” Homan said, with respect to battling illegal immigration.

Rep. Senators Propose August Recess Cancelled : Time to Get The Job Done!

Wait a minute, McConnell is seriously considering cancelling the August recess but first he needs to talk to Schumer? What the hell is that? Who cares what Schumer thinks. He doesn't give a dam what Republicans do or think, it's always what ever the democrats want that is important to Schumer. He is at war with Republicans

The sooner McConnell understands that there actually is a real war activity going on that the democrats are fully committed to and involved in here, the sooner the Republicans join the war, getting off their collective knees and out from under their desks, the sooner something will get done to save the country from all the damage that the democrat war on our civil society has caused already.

16 Senate Republicans Urge Colleagues to Work Through August, Get Nominees Confirmed Faster
Rachel del Guidice / /

Sixteen Republican senators are asking their colleagues to pass a budget and confirm President Donald Trump’s nominees before the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30. “It is time to drain the swamp, and we can help do that by keeping the pumps running in August,” Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., said at a press conference Tuesday aimed in part at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

“It is time to cancel the August recess, keep members here, get the spending bills passed, and get President Trump’s nominees through the Senate and working on behalf of the American people,” Daines said.

Daines signed a letter with 15 other senators asking McConnell for the Senate to work Mondays and Fridays, and nights and weekends, to confirm Trump’s judicial and executive nominees and fund the government before the Sept. 30 deadline.

“Today, 15 months into this presidency, we have 276 nominees backlogged, waiting for confirmation hearings … this is nothing but pure, unadulterated obstructionism,” Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., told reporters. As of Wednesday, the number of pending nominations has increased to 283. It is actually nearly 17 months since Trump took office on Jan. 20, 2017.

In their letter, the lawmakers say they hope to have the kind of success they saw last year when they campaigned to cancel the August recess and worked to confirm 77 nominations with no floor debate. “Our diligence was rewarded with reason, and it can happen again,” the 16 senators write.

Daines, Perdue, and others said they want to work to pass a budget and avoid pushing through a last-minute omnibus spending bill as lawmakers did March 23. Trump threatened to veto that spending package before ultimately signing it and vowing not to do it again. “We want to make sure we fund the government without having to use a continuing resolution or backing into a year-end omnibus,” Perdue said.

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said other Americans don’t have the luxury to shirk their work like Congress does.  “As far as I know, being a member of Congress is the only occupation where you can neglect some of the most important duties and then take a monthlong vacation right before the deadline,” Ernst said. “Our constituents deserve better than this cycle of governing from crisis to crisis. Congress hasn’t passed a budget and regular appropriations bills,” she said. “If they haven’t by August, we shouldn’t be able to leave on vacation or go home or go wherever.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also said he doesn’t want to repeat the mistake of the omnibus bill:

''We received this 2,232-page spending bill a few weeks ago on a Wednesday evening. Then when we found that it was passed by the House before lunch the next day, and passed by the Senate that night, it occurred to many of us that this is not OK, especially when you consider the fact that most of the 435 members of the House and most of the 100 members of the Senate and more importantly, most of the people represented by those members of Congress, were completely kept out of the loop of that process.

Daines said the Senate must overcome Democrats’ obstruction to accomplish the will of the American people. “We were six months into the nation’s fiscal year before Congress finally passed a spending bill,” Daines said. “That is unacceptable. Congress is not getting the people’s business done and not getting it done on time. This is because a great obstruction is going on right now in this Congress. It is time to move beyond that and finish the work that the people asked us to do.”

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, reportedly said McConnell is considering the lawmakers’ request to cancel the August recess. “Sen. McConnell will make an announcement about that at some point. I think he wants to consult with Sen. Schumer and the president,” Cornyn said, according to Politico. “He’s seriously considering what to do.

Progressives Hate Malania : Why? Because They Aren't Her?

Progressive socialist liberals hate anyone that can claim they are self-made with a history of success and has ties to Republicans and Conservatives and therefore must be degraded or destroyed.

Having such a good example on the national and world stage for other women to see and admire, let alone desire the same success as Melania Trump, leaves the progressive socialist little options except to attack her. Oh and that she is classy, very good looking and international just forces the liberal democrats to step up their hatred. 

Melania is everything the progressive socialist liberals aren't.

It's for the same reason the progressive socialist liberal democrats hate  President Donald Trump, he is successful were others have failed, especially where democrats have failed catastrophically.

She's a self-made individual and therefore must be destroyed.

The Reason Liberals View Melania Trump as a Threat
Michelle Malkin / /

Need more evidence that there are two Americas? Here: Left-wing hatred of Melania Trump is inversely proportional to flyover admiration for the first lady.

In just the last month, late-night clown Jimmy Kimmel mocked Trump’s Slovenian accent, CNN contributor April Ryan attacked her as “not culturally American,” former Hillary Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines derided her genteel presence at former [first lady Barbara Bush’s] funeral, and horror writer Stephen King snickered at her hospitalization this week for kidney surgery.

Yet, while partisans in the political press and entertainment media work hard to stoke division against and resentment of the Trump administration, “Melania” is now among the fastest-growing baby names in the nation, according to recently released Social Security data. And a new poll by anti-Trump CNN released on Monday reported a 10 percent jump in the first lady’s favorability ratings—from 47 percent in January to 57 percent last week.

That’s nearly 6 in 10 Americans with a positive view of FLOTUS. Uh-oh!

Imagine how much higher those impressive numbers would be if the same celeb tabloid reporters and TV hosts who slavered over the Obamas in Us magazine and on “The View” afforded Melania Trump the same courtesies. Imagine if the same couture divas who organized “Runway to Win” Obama campaign fundraisers and published breathless weekly reports on “Michelle Obama’s Best Looks Ever” harnessed their influence to promote Trump’s style and fashion sense.

Despite Trump’s successful career as an internationally photographed model featured in Harper’s Bazaar, GQ, Vanity Fair, and Vogue, lib-dominated fashion and celebrity magazines have shunned her. Pop culture editors and producers—who turned Barack and Michelle Obama into the Beltway Brangelina, promoting their election campaign, re-election campaign, books, and every last pet project—have ghosted her.

Why? Fear.

The first lady is not just strikingly beautiful. She is worldly, well-traveled, and well-read. She speaks English, French, German, Italian, and Serbian, in addition to her native Slovenian—more languages than any other woman who has served as America’s first lady. Her devotion to son Barron is exemplary. Her aversion to limelight and lack of political ambition are refreshing. So is her ability to refrain from public grievance-mongering over “sacrifices” and trade-offs made between work and home life (looking at you, Hill and ‘Chelle O).

The hostile White House press corps blames Trump’s own reticence for the publicity vacuum around her. But I believe there’s something deeper at work:

''More exposure to this interesting and remarkable woman would mean more familiarity with her. More familiarity with her might mean more popularity. And God forbid there be more Republican women in the public eye who can compete with—and win against—the usual parade of militant kvetchers and moaners who pass themselves off as feminist role models.''

Doubling down, both Clinton and Michelle Obama have assailed all women who didn’t vote for their political agendas as brainwashed by their husbands or selfishly unenlightened. “In light of this last election, I’m concerned about us, as women, and what we think about ourselves and about each other,” Obama complained at the United State of Women summit in California last week. “What is going on in our heads where we let that happen?”

It’s called choice. It’s called rejecting the tired old ideas that some women are more equal than others or that one party has a gender-based monopoly over the other. Smug Democratic divas who unleash their contempt for independent-minded women instead of working to win them over have learned nothing from the 2016 election.

So Trump, like so many prominent GOP women before her, will continue to be snubbed, humiliated, and demonized by narrative control freaks because women on the right threaten the cultural hegemony of the left. Black or white, rich or poor, centrist or “far right,” native-born or naturalized, Republican mothers, wives, and daughters must be otherized and forced to stay in media-manufactured lanes.

When leftists can’t win on their ideas, they resort to marginalizing the messengers of ideology they abhor—and their mates. It’s not an attractive look.

Mental Illness Discussed : 97% of Mental Hospital Beds Closed. Why?

The question that should be addressed is how did it come to be that the mental hospitals were phased out? What was the reasoning then and what is the reasoning now for not opening them back up?

It stands to reason that this shouldn't be rocket science. People that commit violence, extreme violence, mass killings cannot be considered just depressed, low or confused, they are by definition mentally ill. Nobody commits extreme acts of violence against other human beings and not be mentally ill.

Now I'm not a doctor or play on TV, but at the same time I'm not a rocket scientist either or even dream of being one, still it's just common sense that neglecting treatment for mental illness as a priority, 'the mentally ill are not violent', is committing oneself to a guarantee of more extreme violence to our civil society.

Our Approach to Severe Mental Illness Endangers Everyone
Jarrett Stepman / /

Americans pour billions of their taxpayer dollars into treating mental illness, but the spending isn’t addressing the real crisis. Though most media coverage focuses on gun control after shootings take place, few reports pay attention to the increasing problem of untreated, severe mental illness.

As The Daily Signal previously reported, a massive deinstitutionalization of mentally ill people occurred in the past half-century.

 How Better Treatment of the Mentally Ill Could Reduce Mass Shootings

In an article in National Review, the Treatment Advocacy Center’s executive director, John Snook, writes about how dramatic the move to deinstitutionalization has been:

''From its historic peak in 1955 to 2016, the number of state psychiatric-hospital beds in the United States plummeted almost 97 percent, in a trend known as ‘deinstitutionalization.’ There are now fewer beds per capita in the United States than there were in 1850. An analysis of the broader system of both inpatient and other 24-hour residential-treatment beds similarly found a 77.4 percent decrease from 1970 to 2014.

This change is having serious repercussions for the country.

A recent Heritage Foundation panel addressed this problem, outlining the depth of the crisis and how it is putting the mentally ill and the rest of society at increased risk.

Watch the video

Dr. Sally Satel, a psychiatrist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who is an expert in mental health policy, explained how, as a nation, we have muddled what it means to be mentally ill.  A wide gap exists between general problems with mental health—such as depression and anxiety—and severe mental illness, Satel said.

Those with severe mental illness “can’t really function and participate in life,” she said. Worse, they increasingly are incarcerated instead of being treated.  “An estimated 1 in 5 people in homeless shelters and approximately 20 percent of those in jail or prison were classified as having a severe mental illness,” Satel said.

These are individuals with conditions such as schizophrenia, crippling post-traumatic stress disorder that prevents them from leaving home, and other debilitating illnesses.  “Severely mentally ill people are the ones who are populating our jails, unfortunately because our system clearly has problems; the infrastructure of the mental health system is bad in many places,” Satel said.

This is the most vulnerable population that is not getting proper treatment, in part because we have misallocated resources to treat conditions that are a lot less serious.  “Severe mental illness and mental health are different things,” Satel said.

DJ Jaffe, executive director of Mental Illness Policy Org, a nonprofit organization devoted to informing the public about serious mental illness, said our misguided policies are hurting people with mental illness and putting everyone at risk.  Jaffe said we are failing to make a distinction between a generally bad mental state and severe mental illness, which is about more than just being sad or depressed.

He brought up the case of President Ronald Reagan’s attempted assassin, who had delusions that shooting the president could land him a date with a Hollywood actress.  “John Hinckley shot President Reagan because he knew for a fact that that was the best way to get a date with Jodie Foster,” Jaffe said. “That is serious mental illness, and we are failing people with it.”

Dealing with the issue is not just about spending more money. “In spite of the federal government spending $147 billion annually, states kicking in around another $50 billion annually, 400,000 seriously mentally ill are incarcerated, 140,000 mentally ill are homeless. Why is this?” Jaffe asked.
“The reason is we moved from a hospital-based system, which by definition served people with mental illness, to a community-based system that largely ignores those with serious mental illness,” he said.

The problem, Jaffe said, is that the system stopped focusing on the seriously mentally ill. Currently, 35 percent of them receive no treatment at all, he said. The solution, he said, is to shift priorities instead of just spending more money: Decrease mental health spending and start spending to address severe mental illness.  “Replace mission creep with mission control,” Jaffe said.

The mental health industry has fueled this problem, he said, by misleading the government and the American people. “After every headline-grabbing act of violence like a Parkland or a Virginia Tech, the industry tries to convince government to not take steps to reduce violence by the mentally ill,” Jaffe said. “They pull out their favorite claim: ‘The mentally ill are no more violent than others.’”

This is nonsense, Jaffe said, and is based on cherry-picking the data in the studies. He said the actions of the health care industry prove its belief that the severely mentally ill are more dangerous:

''The studies show treatment works, no more, no less. And the industry knows the mentally ill are more violent than others. Psychiatric units are locked, cancer units aren’t. Psychiatric nurses wear panic buttons, those in heart units don’t. Outreach teams go out in pairs for their own safety.

The mental health industry is soliciting contracts to train police how to deescalate in situations involving the mentally ill, not people with psoriasis. So of course the untreated mentally ill are more violent than others, and the industry has led us to ignore that.

Instead of treating these potentially dangerous individuals, the mental health industry focuses on addressing “stigma,” Jaffe said. But this isn’t the problem. Our policies will have a healthy change when we start listing to the police, who have become the real experts on what is going on, Jaffe said.

People who should have been committed to institutions before they got dangerous are filling our prisons. Police are forced to deal with these people, many of whom have become “frequent flyers” who continually have run-ins with authorities.

“What closing psychiatric hospital beds did was it moved people from hospitals to jails. There are 10 times as many incarcerated as hospitalized now,” Jaffe said.