New Budget Plan for Medicaid : Reform It Or Lose It.

Professor Johnathan Gruber explained the philosophy and agenda of OgbjmaCare perfectly, He explained he had to lie to the congress and the people to get it passed, no Republicans voted for this monster, because the people, and probably many in congress, were too stupid to understand what the OgbjmaCare bill really was.

Then to, many in congress knew exactly what the bill was all about and said so causing democrats to go all out lying about all of the benefits of OgbjmaCare, including Barack, 27 times on national television.

Still, OgbjmaCare sought to drive expense for the public and insurance companies skyward making policy affordably out of the question. Medicaid was one of the single largest drivers of abuse and corruption due to people finding a way out of the mandatory nature of OgbjmaCare, forcing thousands to have to lie about their health status and therefore become criminals. Thanks Barack!

Gruber also knew Medicaid would be the ultimate nail in national heath care coffin causing it to become unworkable and a financial disaster for states. Ever wonder why nearly all of the OgbjmaCare exchanges have collapsed, costing the taxpayers $billions of dollars.

Trump’s Budget Puts Medicaid on a Path to Long-Needed Reform
Robert Moffit / May 25, 2017   

Medicaid, the huge government health program for the poor and the indigent, is broken.
Both the Trump administration’s recent budget submission and the House-passed American Health Care Act, designed to partially repeal and replace Obamacare, propose Medicaid fixes.
Dubious assumptions burden the Trump budget proposal, and the House health care reform bill labors under some serious deficiencies. Both are correct, however, in resetting the general direction on Medicaid policy. Medicaid is beset by two serious problems.

The first is a fiscal problem. Medicaid is an “open-ended” federal entitlement, and thus it contributes, like other major federal entitlements, to deficits and dangerous levels of national debt. As the Congressional Budget Office has described current Medicaid financing:

All federal reimbursement for medical services is open-ended, meaning that if a state spends more because enrollment increases or costs per enrollee rise, additional federal payments are automatically generated.

America can no longer afford automatic federal entitlement spending. This is a bipartisan conclusion.
In 2008, for example, a politically diverse group of senior analysts and economists, in “Taking Back Our Fiscal Future,” concluded:

The first step toward establishing budget responsibility is to reform the budget decision process so that the major drivers of escalating deficits—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—are no longer on autopilot.

The signatories included top analysts from The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, Progressive Policy Institute, New America Foundation, and Urban Institute.
These analysts issue a further recommendation:

Congress and the president enact explicit long-term budgets for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security that are sustainable, set limits on automatic spending growth, and reduce the relatively favorable budgetary treatment of these programs compared with other types of expenditures.

Both the Trump budget proposal and the House health care reform bill are taking a first big step in that direction: capping the annual growth in Medicaid spending. This is a fundamental and fiscally responsible decision. Medicaid should no longer be an “open-ended” entitlement.

The second Medicaid problem is its programmatic performance. Medicaid serves the poor and the indigent—mostly poor women and children, the disabled, and the poor elderly, including nursing home care as part of its long-term care supports and services.

The program is not doing a good job. Compared to the privately insured, based on various studies, Medicaid patients have less access to care, longer hospital stays, and higher mortality rates. This is not surprising since Medicaid pays doctors about 66 percent of what Medicare pays, and Medicare already pays doctors about 20 percent below private market rates.

Medicaid is not delivering the value commensurate with its rising cost. The best way to secure value—better care at lower costs—is to encourage competition based on personal choice and control over the dollars and decisions.

Obviously, such a market-based model is not appropriate for all Medicaid beneficiaries. A block grant approach, with ample state flexibility to manage care in their interest, may be the best option.
For able-bodied persons, however, Congress and the administration should go beyond block grants and create a new Medicaid option, harnessing the market forces of choice and competition.
This can best be done through a defined contribution (a “premium support”) to competing private health plans and providers that able-bodied Medicaid beneficiaries choose.

With broader networks of doctors and other medical professionals, such a policy would offer Medicaid beneficiaries superior coverage and better access to care than they have today. That kind of change would be transformational.

Trump Moves Into South China Sea : China's Military Outpost Challenged

Barack demonstrating his desire to be compliant and indifferent to the Chinese adventurism in the South China Sea allowed the building of military outpost to begin china's quest for control in the region. And why not as there wasn't any opponent that could or would stand up to stop them.

As time has passed, Trump is slowly taking the high ground back from the Chinese with his action of explaining the game of ''power in position'' has changed.

Trump Signals New US Approach to China With Tough Actions
Dean Cheng / May 26, 2017   

Two developments in the past few weeks suggest that America’s China policy is on a cusp.
The more publicly discussed event involves the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Dewey, which conducted a freedom of navigation operation near Mischief Reef in the Spratlys island group.
This is the first freedom of navigation action conducted by the Trump administration. It is the first true freedom of navigation conducted since at least 2012.

By contrast, the Obama administration had undertaken a handful of “innocent passage” activities in the South China Sea, which failed to demonstrate the critical issues at stake.

The actions carried out in the previous administration were intended to argue that the U.S. did not need permission from China to enter the waters around its artificial islands—while ignoring the bigger question of whether China’s artificial islands exerted any sovereign claim to water at all.

Recommitting to Freedom of Navigation
The contrast is telling. With the Obama administration actions, there was an implicit endorsement that China’s artificial islands were, in fact, islands, because “innocent passage” involves rapid transit through the territorial waters of another nation. Moreover, in an “innocent passage” operation, the transiting ship cannot conduct any kind of military activity, in deference to the idea that the waters being transited are not international in nature.

The Obama administration further muddied the waters by choosing features whose sovereignty was in dispute—and therefore could claim that it was not singling out Chinese-claimed features.
Even after the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that the various features in the South China Sea were not, in fact, islands and therefore could not lay claim to a 12-nautical mile territorial sea, the Obama administration nonetheless refused to reinforce the point by conducting a genuine freedom of navigation operation.

By contrast, the USS Dewey not only transited within 12 nautical miles of Mischief Reef, but more importantly, conducted a “man overboard” drill. Such an action would contravene an “innocent passage” exercise, but is perfectly within the scope of a “freedom of navigation” operation. Indeed, it underscores the message that Mischief Reef is not an island, and therefore does not merit a claim to exerting territorial waters.

For the first time since at least 2012, the United States is signaling Beijing that its efforts to dominate the South China Sea will not be meekly accepted, but will be challenged.

Defending Human Rights
In the same period, the family of Chinese dissident lawyer Xie Yang was successfully smuggled out of a Thai prison, where they were being held for extradition to China. Xie is one of several lawyers and human rights activists who have been arrested as Beijing has cracked down on dissent.

The decisive American action stands in contrast to the fumbling by American embassy officials in the case of Chen Guancheng. When the blind human rights lawyer sought refuge in the American embassy in May 2012, American officials were diffident about his status. Chen himself indicated in contemporary interviews that he felt pressured to leave the embassy, as American officials were unable to offer guarantees of his wife’s safety.

It remains unclear what the Trump administration’s overall strategy is for Asia. North Korea continues to push development of longer range missiles able to reach the United States.
The People’s Republic of China, despite promises by President Xi Jinping to President Donald Trump to pressure Pyongyang, has demonstrated limited impact on North Korea; Chinese statistics even suggest that trade between China and North Korea has increased.

While the administration has suggested bilateral trade deals in the region in place of U.S. membership in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, whether there are any takers and what exactly its new trade strategy is remains unclear. But for one Chinese dissident’s family, the United States has demonstrated that its commitment to basic principles can take concrete form. And in the middle of the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy appears to be back in the business of defending freedom of the seas. The auguries seem to be improving.

Trump To Decide On Climate Insanity : The Base Knows The Answer! It's A Lie.

It is and always has been about the money. Man-made climate change is a lie. For anyone that is awake and rational knows this. History is something that is hard to hide when all you have to do is find a ''warmer'' and ask if the $billions of dollars that have already been spent have made a difference in the world climate? Their play book answers are staggeringly bastardized and obviously illogical and depraved. Plainly pathological.

The saying, 'insanity cannot be defended by rational debate' works well for climate change.

Or even better, why is it necessary to spend more $billions of dollars on something that has shown to be a lie by even the most reputable sources like East Anglia and the United Nations Climate consul that admit their results show they have no actual evidence of climate disasters caused by warming.

So why do so many people still believe??? Is it just the money or something larger. Mass hypnosis? Weak self serving leaders taking the easy way out instead of standing for common sense and logic? Both?

As I have stated on several other occasions, man-made climate change is delusional, implausible, unpromising , ill-conceived, diabolical, improbably, degenerate, contentious, shameless and finally of course just plain wrong!!!

The Possible Reasons Big Corporations Are So Eager for Trump to Break His Promise on Paris Climate Deal
Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / May 26, 2017   

European countries and major corporations are pressuring President Donald Trump to remain in the Paris climate agreement despite his promises on the campaign trail to withdraw the United States from the Obama-era deal that never gained congressional approval. The Trump administration so far is sticking with being undecided—at least until Trump returns to the United States from his first foreign trip, where on Friday, he’s meeting with Group of Seven ally countries, which support the agreement.

Back home, the pressure is growing from multinational corporations, even the energy sector, which have opposed stricter limitations on carbon. Exxon Mobil Corp., once run by Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP are urging the administration to remain in the agreement. Meanwhile, coal mining company Cloud Peak Energy urged the administration to remain.

“BP and Shell are European companies and it’s impossible to do business in Europe without towing the political line,” Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Signal. He added that for oil and gas companies, “the only way to get the price of gas back up is to kill coal. The Paris Agreement kills fossil fuels, but it kills coal first.”

Ebell was part of Trump’s transition team overseeing the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute sponsored an ad showing Trump during the campaign saying, “We are going to cancel the Paris climate agreement and stop all payments of the United States tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.”

Watch the video : https://youtu.be/jctwsAKv5eY

While corporate support might seem surprising, it’s very much the same old story for large companies seeking an advantage over smaller competitors, said Katie Tubb, a policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation. “Big business and big government often go hand-in-hand. Big businesses generally can absorb and adapt to the costs of complying with burdensome regulation, of which Paris is a wellspring,” Tubb told The Daily Signal. “Smaller companies have a much harder time complying, which means less competition for big business. This is especially true if big business can influence the substance of regulations to favor themselves or freeze out competitors. I think in other cases; these large companies are just looking for PR points.”

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry led the United States into the Paris climate change agreement, along with 170 other countries. The agreement commits member countries to shift their energy industries away from fossil fuels and toward green energy. Two dozen major U.S. companies—including Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, the Hartford, Levi Strauss, PG&E, and Morgan Stanley—sent an open letter to Trump published in The New York Times and other newspapers across the country, urging him to remain in the deal. The letter says:

By requiring action by developed and developing countries alike, the agreement ensures a more balanced global effort, reducing the risk of competitive imbalances for U.S. companies … By expanding markets for innovative clean technologies, the agreement generates jobs and economic growth. U.S. companies are well positioned to lead in these markets.
U.S. business is best served by a stable and practical framework facilitating an effective and balanced global response. The Paris Agreement provides such a framework. As other countries invest in advanced technologies and move forward with the Paris Agreement, we believe the United States can best exercise global leadership and advance U.S. interests by remaining a full partner in this vital global effort.

Generally, larger energy companies have an advantage under the climate deal, said Fred Palmer, senior fellow for energy and climate at the Heartland Institute. “Follow the money,” Palmer told The Daily Signal. “There are companies that want to game the system of using [carbon dioxide] as a currency to make money.”

After meetings at the Vatican earlier this week, Tillerson said, “The president indicated we’re still thinking about that, that he hasn’t made a final decision.”

Ahead of the G7 meeting, Trump chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, the director of the White House National Economic Council, told a pool reporter Friday that the president is weighing both sides.
“I think he’s leaning to understand the European position. Look, as you know from the U.S., there’s very strong views on both sides,” Cohn said. “He also knows that Paris has important meaning to many of the European leaders. And he wants to clearly hear what the European leaders have to say.”
Ebell warned that if the administration seeks to make a deal to stay in the agreement, perhaps with a lower commitment than the Obama administration pledged, then a future president could simply increase the U.S. commitment. That’s why, Ebell said, it’s best for the United States to get out.
“Obviously foreign leaders don’t care what Trump promised voters in the campaign,” Ebell said.

To be sure, many U.S. business groups oppose the Paris Agreement, such as the Industrial Energy Consumers of America—which represents manufacturers and other larger energy-using businesses—that wrote an April 24 letter to administration officials. The letter said:

We are the ones who eventually bear the costs of government imposed [greenhouse gas] reduction schemes. At the same time, we are often already economically disadvantaged, as compared to global competitors who are subsidized or protected by their governments.
Given the above concerns, IECA fails to see the benefit of the Paris Climate Accord. And, the long-term implications of the Paris Climate Accord, which includes greater future [greenhouse gas] reduction requirements, raises serious competitiveness and job implications for [energy-intensive, trade-exposed] industries.

OgbjmaCare Failed From The Start : New Study Show The Progressive's Disaster

The bottom line here is the Republicans supposedly had the option to allow OgbjmaCare to destroy our healthcare and blame the progressive democrats for the failure and disaster. Then rebuild it to function properly.

But in realty the Republicans would be blamed by the media for the collapse of the system, as they are now blaming the Republicans for not fixing the broken OgbjmaCare system fast enough and failing to do a good job of it.

As usual, it's always a win win situation for the progressive democrats. They destroy the system and then blame the opposition that's trying to fix the problem. Worst of all, a majority of the population believes the  media democrats.

I guess the old saying works well in this instance, ''When ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise''. Of course, in the end, the democrats know the Republicans will rescue the nation from the democrats diseased, contemptuous and malfunctioning agenda and ideology.

In 3 Charts, the Biggest Revelations From New Obamacare Study
Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / May 24, 2017   

Health care costs continue to rise under Obamacare. A report released Tuesday by the Department of Health and Human Services shows a significant hike in the average cost of individual plans since 2013 in 39 states. In 2013, the average annual cost of a premium for an individual health care plan was $2,784. By 2017, the average annual cost for a premium for an individual health care plan on HealthCare.gov was $5,712. Thirty-nine states use HealthCare.gov.

In three states, the Obamacare premiums are now triple the average individual premium in 2013.

Twenty-four states had Obamacare premiums in 2017 that were double the average individual premium in 2013.

In three states, the Obamacare premiums are now triple the average individual premium in 2013.

President Barack Obama promised premiums would go down under Obamacare.  “You should know that once we [have Obamacare] fully implemented, you’re going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you’re an employee at a big company you can get right now—which means your premiums will go down,” Obama said in 2012.

Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a public policy research organization, told The Daily Signal in an email that Obamacare is flawed. “The key promise the Obama administration made to Americans in the health reform debate was that their premium and health costs would go down,” Turner said, adding:

But year after year, families have seen their premiums soar. This new HHS study, looking at premium costs before and after Obamacare, proves that the law has failed dramatically to fulfill its promise.  

Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, said in a statement that “This report proves what Republicans have been saying for years—Obamacare was sold on lies that failed to deliver for the American people.”

Bob Moffit, a senior fellow and health care expert at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that he is not surprised by the findings of the study.  “Obamacare has literally wrecked the individual market with skyrocketing premiums, crazy deductibles, restrictive physician networks, and a radical decline in plan participation and competition,” Moffit said. “The roots of the current crisis were baked into the law from the beginning, [along with] costly benefit mandates and inflexible insurance regulations.”

Drew Gonshorowski, a senior policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, who studies Medicare and Medicaid, said he is also unsurprised.  “This study shows something that we’ve already known about the exchanges for some time now–that premiums have and continue to rise drastically,” Gonshorowski said in an email to The Daily Signal.  House Speaker Paul Ryan said the law cannot sustain itself.

In a report released Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Republican Obamacare replacement plan, the American Health Care Act, will reduce budget deficits by $119 billion from 2017-2026.  Under Obamacare, the number of uninsured is estimated to be 28 million in 2026, according to the report, which estimates that number would rise to 51 million the same year if the American Health Care Act became law.

This article has been corrected to reflect the average cost for Obamacare premiums in 2017.

Pennsylvania's Law Change by Fiat : Progressives to Change The Meaning of ''Sex''.

Oh my goodness - there is no end to the sinister and unscrupulous actions of the progressive socialist liberals to force their personal agenda and ideology on our the civil society. Barack set the tone for the last 8 years as he focused on his religious jihad for a ideological change and transformation.

The definition of insanity hasn't changed though.

Now the other progressives that succeeded in gaining positions of power are carrying on Barack's legacy of chaos and conflict by doing the same thing the Barack did so successfully, legislating by fiat, to hell with he peoples representatives.

But wait, who voted for these progressive socialists into office?

What’s at Stake in the Left’s Effort to Redefine ‘Sex’ in Pennsylvania Law
Michael Geer / @MichaelGeer / May 20, 2017   

State capitals across the country are proving they are not immune to the malady that has afflicted the policy process in Washington. The latest case in point: Pennsylvania.

In a quietly released statement issued late on a Friday afternoon, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, an agency of the state government, announced a proposal to effectively redefine the word “sex” in the state’s discrimination law to also include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” or “SOGI” for short. This proposal wouldn’t change the law—only the commission’s “guidance” on the matter. But this new “guidance” would mean the law would be enforced as if it had changed.

This guidance comes on the heels of repeated failures to accomplish the same outcome through the legitimate way of changing laws—through the legislative process and with the consent of the governed. It is a move that mimics the Obama administration’s executive and bureaucratic overreaches when Congress rejected LGBT demands for changes in federal law. It also represents a serious usurpation of legislative authority and an end run around our political system.
First, a little background and some history.

For more than a decade, LGBT activists have sought to add sexual orientation and gender identity language to Pennsylvania’s anti-discrimination statute. This has become one of the most hardly fought social policy efforts of the left. Pennsylvania is certainly not unique in receiving such challenges from the social left.

It is notable, however, that Pennsylvania citizens have repeatedly been successful in stopping these proposals in the Legislature when most of the states in the northeast have not. There are several reasons for this:

• History

This diverse context has created higher sensitivity to laws that would police and sanction beliefs. Simply put, Pennsylvanians value tolerance. Pennsylvania has a long history of tolerance, religious freedom, and protecting the rights of conscience. That heritage has drawn to the state a citizenry that represents a broad array of religious backgrounds and accepts those who are different.

• Intolerance in Other States

As has been witnessed in other states, sexual orientation and gender identity laws and regulations have worked against universal tolerance. They have empowered government prosecutors and bureaucrats to force actions and speech that can cause a citizen to violate their conscience and religious convictions.

Just ask Barronelle Stuztman or Melissa Klein. Such coercive and punitive action by government undermines tolerance and only spurs division.

• An Affront to Women’s Rights

Examples of this can be found across the country, whether it’s a biologically male adult changing clothes in front of girls in a swim club locker room in Seattle, or teens and children facing similar circumstances in their schools, or female school athletes seeing their opportunities for success evaporate as physical males are being allowed to compete against them.

Sexual orientation and gender identity laws have been used to suggest that restricting bathroom use by biological sex is discriminatory. This has forced policy changes that threaten bathroom personal privacy and, in some cases, safety. The result is often an affront to the rights of women.

These and other concerns, brought to the attention of Pennsylvania lawmakers by their constituents, have thus far succeeded in preventing a statewide adoption of sexual orientation and gender identity legislation. This despite significant spending by national special interests and the hiring of some of the most powerful lobbyists in Harrisburg to pressure the House and Senate to cave.

That brings us to Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Tom Wolf. Wolf, named America’s most liberal governor, instigated a shakeup in the Human Relations Commission by demoting the chairman and installing a new chairman to further his agenda.

Now, in the face of a legislative stalemate, the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission is making an end run around the Legislature to impose a freedom-robbing policy through a bureaucratic agency that was founded to guard our civil liberties.

The Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission’s website, www.phrc.pa.gov, is inviting public comment on the proposed guidance via email to chreese@pa.gov through Friday, May 26.
“This change in guidance by the [Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission] effectively means a change in law, a change that would be devastating to personal privacy and religious liberty,” said Randall Wenger, chief counsel of the Independence Law Center. “That’s why it’s important that lovers of liberty make their voice heard to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission during their public comment period.”

Lovers of the legitimate, constitutional lawmaking process may wish to chime in as well.

Trump Stomps On Climate Change Waste : Budget Cuts To Save Sanity

It isn't necessary to look any further then the nearest medical facility that treats the mentally ill to find answers to man-made climate change.

The insanity that is rampant in the climate business is the same as seen in the press, television and newsprint, that has taken it upon themselves to demonstrate their medical problems on a daily basis for all to see and understand.

They are unashamed with telling everyone that they have no idea what represents common sense or logic, and yet they stand tall proclaiming things that to the average citizen appears depraved, or just the ravings of lunatics.

The average citizens that works to feed and clothes their families and provide some sort of future is more concerned with how the government is spending their tax dollars they worked very hard for, but now being pissed away on projects designed to line the pockets of the elites in Washington.

Little wonder people voted like they did last November. I just hope Donald Trump remembers how he got elected.

Climate Budget Cuts Are Smart Management, Not an Attack on Science
Katie Tubb / Nicolas Loris / @NiconomistLoris / May 25, 2017   

It’s been described as a “slap in the face,” “slaughter,” “a punitive … assault on science, the environment, and indeed the planet.” Aside from being inappropriate and irresponsible, these remarks are how some in the policy world and media have depicted cuts to global warming spending in President Donald Trump’s first budget proposal. People seem to have forgotten—or perhaps never noticed—just how much the government spends on direct climate programs.

Trump’s budget proposal does in fact eliminate or cut a number of climate programs. But you don’t have to scratch too far beneath the surface to realize there are legitimate justifications for doing so.
Even if the federal budget won’t be balanced on the back of eliminated climate programs, there are a number of basic problems with government climate spending.

1. Quite simply, there are a lot of global warming programs.

At least 18 federal agencies administer climate change activities, costing at least $77 billion between fiscal years 2008 and 2013, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The Government Accountability Office noted in 2009 that “the federal government’s emerging adaptation activities were carried out in an ad hoc manner and were not well coordinated across federal agencies, let alone with state and local governments.”

For all the Obama administration’s emphasis on global warming as an issue, the Government Accountability Office’s December 2016 assessment found only partial improvement in program management and could not yet determine if government standards showed whether programs were being effective, as they had only just been implemented.

2. Most of the money goes to green tech rather than science.    

According to the Government Accountability Office, the bulk of federal climate spending has gone to technology development rather than science, wildlife, or international aid. This has been particularly true in more recent years as a result of the Obama administration’s failed stimulus package, which funneled billions of dollars into energy technologies.

The Department of Energy is notorious for spending on research, development, demonstration, and commercialization of technologies like wind, solar, geothermal, electric vehicles, biofuels, coal carbon capture and sequestration, small nuclear, and batteries.

If these technologies are economically viable, there will be plenty of private sector capital available to develop them. Hardworking taxpayers shouldn’t have to dump money into speculative or failing technology companies or pad the bottom lines of successful ones.

3. There’s a lot of wasteful spending.

As just one example of wasteful spending, Office of Budget and Management Director Mick Mulvaney highlighted the National Science Foundation’s grant for a global warming musical. (The nearly $700,000 grant was awarded in 2010.)

There are many other equally ridiculous examples, such as an Environmental Protection Agency grant for “green” nail salon concepts in California. There are other much larger boondoggles, too. The Navy spent hundreds of millions of dollars on biofuels to meet a political objective to “jumpstart” a domestic biofuel economy with no strategic advantage for military capabilities.

A First Look at Energy Issues in Trump’s Budget 

Despite clear direction from Congress that fuels be cost-competitive, the executive branch camouflaged the costs of the Navy’s biofuel program by subsidizing it through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Commodity Credit Corporation program and the Department of Energy. While the Navy’s price per gallon may appear cheap, the actual total cost to the government is much higher.

4. International climate initiatives are fatally flawed.

There are a number of problems with America’s continued participation in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the body that has produced international global warming agreements and, most recently, the Paris Protocol.

One would think that an international climate conference aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be the perfect opportunity to have a teleconference to show some good faith. But instead, government officials from around the world fly to lavish venues while telling you to buy hybrids and eat less meat.

Each year, the result is the same: symbolic commitments that shame industrialization and the use of fossil fuels with little to no actual impact on the climate. Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority’s participation in the Paris Protocol should be cause enough to halt funding as Congress has stipulated under current law.

As the Trump budget proposes, the U.S. should also end funding to the quasi-scientific body behind the Paris Protocol—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This panel’s studies have been subject to bias, manipula­tion, and poor data.

5. There are major problems and gaps in climate science.

The fact is, climate modeling is at this point an inexact science. Models have proven to be inaccurate, and regulatory cost-benefit accounting metrics based on them are indefensible.

It is thus no surprise that massive government policies like the Paris Protocol and Clean Power Plan are demonstrably ineffective in addressing global temperatures.

There are many areas of disagreement and uncertainty among climate scientists, not to mention biologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, economists, and others with relevant expertise.

Exacerbating this is the role the federal government has played in toxifying the scientific debate on global warming. Rather than fostering scientific discovery in a field that is a mere few decades old, the federal government appears to have expressed bias in funding science that supports federal climate policies.

Science that challenges the current narrative is pilloried in the press and labeled “denialism,” whereas an intellectually honest approach would seek to understand and improve the science.

The debate is not improved by demands for RICO investigations or anti-science statements castigating those with different opinions as part of the “flat earth society” with their “heads in the sand,” and encouraging people to “find the deniers near you—and call them out today.”

We don’t need more spending on iterative studies telling us that coffee could be more expensive and snakes bigger thanks to global warming. We need better modeling, better understanding of basic science, more data, and a better, transparent discussion on climate science and climate policies.
Even after the president’s proposed cuts, there is plenty of money left in the federal budget to study and model the climate.

For instance, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, a division that includes many climate programs within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, would be cut by more than $150 million, but still retain a hefty $324 million.
Time for Trump to Fulfill Promise and Withdraw From Paris Climate Agreement 

Let’s also not forget the role that universities, nonprofits, and international organizations play in studying the global climate.

Eliminating wasteful spending, some of which has nothing to do with studying the science at all, is smart management, not an attack on science. It’s time to end the boondoggles and hold the federal government’s climate science activities to the same standards of rationality and cost effectiveness as other government spending.

College Protesters Demand Othes Must Not Have Freedom : Freedom For Me But Not You.

First of all, given the insanity of these progressive socialist and their protests against free speech and association on this college campus and many others, throws a lot of doubt into the face of what our country was and is about to become.

This is especially true on this Memorial Day recognizing all those that gave their last full measure to secure the right of the protesters to demand others must forgo that freedom that they are demanding for themselves.

But we aren't fooled into believing what the protesters are demanding is legitimate under the law as stated in our Constitution. We know what is right and correct. We will not allow the few to control the many. It is OUR right to stand up and be heard and demand our rights as citizens to free association and speech.

As I have stated on other occasions such as this, Edmond Burke said it best, ''The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.''

God bless America and what she stands for. Accept nothing less.

Students and Faculty Protesters Demand Punishment of College Republicans Chapter
Rob Shimshock / @ShimshockAndAwe / May 24, 2017   

Student and faculty protesters rushed a college administration building Monday calling for the school to punish its College Republicans chapter. Orange Coast College faculty and students protested the College Republicans chapter after the group published emails from OCC professor Jessica Alabi to Orange Coast College President Dennis Harkins. The emails revealed the professor said she would “stand up” to the group, if the president did not, according to Campus Reform.

The materials also showed that Alabi stopped members of the group from attending a campus event because, she said, they were perceived as a threat to the “safe space.”

The College Repuplicans want OCC to investigate the professor. The protesters shouted, “No hate, no KKK, no fascist USA” and “Get that club out of our face.” Students held socialist flags and symbols or signs mocking the College Republicans.

“It makes no sense to me why the union and a vocal minority of students would protest against the OCC Republicans for simply asking for an investigation into the matter and protections for students from being discriminated against on the basis of their political affiliation,” said Joshua Recalde-Martinez, the OCC College Republicans’ former president.

OCC’s College Republicans chapter has come under increasing faculty scrutiny since December, when the group released a video depicting an OCC professor calling President Donald Trump’s election an “act of terrorism.” The student who recorded that incident was temporarily suspended, while the professor received a “Faculty Member of the Year” award.

“The OCC administration has done everything in its power to silence the College Republicans for standing up for what they believe in,” said Peter Van Voorhis, who has worked with the group and reported extensively on controversies surrounding it for Campus Reform. “It’s incredible that in 2017, colleges across America continue to marginalize conservative students to promote their own leftist agenda.” “Intellectual diversity is a hallmark of higher education, and there is certainly none left at OCC after today’s incident.”

The Daily Caller News Foundation sought comment from the university, but received none by press time.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

'Freedom Means Having Nothing Else to Lose' : Who Paid The Price for Freedom?

Never forget who paid the price for the freedom to chose.

Why is it that we have selected only one day out of the year to honor those that have given everything but there souls so we can have burgers on the grill or have a picnic in the park?

I guess when things are going well, the trouble that others see and then rise to the occasion are forgotten. Out of sight and out of mind I guess.

Still, there are many who know the sacrifice, the pain that lingers in the body and the mind of those that did the rough things while others slept in the beds, secure.

It is the right thing today to at least have some thoughts about how we got to this point in time where we are living in the greatest nation on earth ever, and thanking the millions that are not here to enjoy the fruits of their last and greatest personal sacrifice.

God bless this country, it's all volunteer military, it's flag and what it stands for. The freedom to chose without fear, without intimidation or threats of violence from an all powerful single minded and centralized government that has absolute power over us.

Today, and every once an a while, recite the pledge to our flag and ponder what it means to be an American ; " I pledge alliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.''

Understand and believe,  'freedom means having nothing else to lose'.

Political Correctness of Liberals And Diversity : We All Die Together

Hear no evil, see no evil and die knowing no evil.

Know this, even when that micro instant before the bullet reaches the brain, the progressive socialist liberal will never admit they are wrong, but in  that millisecond before the explosion, they will begin to have a doubt.

But they will have the satisfaction of knowing their philosophy and ideology of liberalism and diversity, ''We all die together'' will be only work as long as there someone else that as dumb as they are to believe holding hands, blocking traffic will win the day.

Venezuela's Promises of Socialists Rewards : Tyranny and Death

Venezuela : This was Barack's ultimate vision of a ''transformed'' America.  No freedom. No liberty. No justice. No options but do as you are told or be imprisoned or a shallow grave. Little wonder he found so much praise from Iran and other criminal regimes.

Remember Barack's much heralded visits to Cuba with Raul Castro and Venezuela under Hugo Chavez by the media and democrats? Both Raul and Hugo(were) and are advocates of communism, progressive socialist liberalism, and their ultimate rewards? This is the outcome for America if Barack's religious jihad had been successful.

Thank God and our Constitution, the people understood the danger and voted to stop the corruption of  tyranny by the few in our civil society. Repairing the damage done by the progressive socialist liberals over the last 8 years will not be easy, but just with the knowledge that the people still have the power to make changes in this country, we can confidently look forward to the future as the return of common sense and the rule of law will make the difference.

I Grew Up in Chavez’s Socialist Venezuela. Here’s What I Think About the Current Crisis.
Ricardo Pita / @pita_ricardo / May 24, 2017

Venezuela’s air is thick with tear gas and its streets are stained with the blood of its youth. The South American nation has been reduced to a battlefield as government forces brutally pummel protestors. For the past 50 days, Venezuelans throughout the country have taken to the streets in anti-government uprisings. With approval ratings in the teens, the socialist and criminal regime of President Nicolas Maduro appears to be on its last legs. Hundreds of thousands of protestors continue pouring into the streets, demanding an end to the corruption that has bankrupted the world’s most oil-rich nation.

Maduro has predictably responded to this pressure with more violence.  Nearly 50 Venezuelans have been killed in the protests in the past two months, and more deaths will likely follow if the government follows through on its plan of deploying military snipers to tame the crowds.
Such a plan, coupled with the repeated threats from Maduro himself, puts the fragility of his political creed on full display.

Socialism is a scam best understood by those who sell it and, eventually, the ones swindled by it.
Over 20 years ago, under the banner of socialism and its endless list of impossible promises, demagogues hijacked Venezuela’s government, dismantled civil society, and crippled the national economy. Led by Maduro’s deceased predecessor, Hugo Chavez, the socialists implemented measures that crippled the private sector and triggered massive capital flights and brain drains.

Growing up in Chavez’s Venezuela is the defining experience of my life. The country was collapsing and no one seemed to be able to stop it. The opposition was persecuted, journalists were silenced, peaceful protesters were murdered, and crime was rampant.

As a kid, the crisis was evident to me when it was no longer safe to play baseball in the streets, when my parents whispered about yet another kidnapping in the neighborhood, or when my grandmother returned home teary-eyed after being mugged. My parents, like many others at the time, recognized that the country’s decay was imminent. The socialist party’s grip over government institutions grew stronger and, in turn, those institutions grew more impotent in dealing with the looming crises.
Corrupt Venezuelan Regime Failing to Quell Humanitarian Crisis 

The gradual and continued breakdown of the separation of powers meant that the rule of law would further erode, and the situation would grow more dire. So, with a heavy heart but with a firm understating of what was to come, my parents left everything behind to give our family a second chance here in the U.S. This second chance allowed my brother and I to know and grow up in a country whose society is at its best when individuals are empowered, not burdened, by the government. This is a nation where civil society and strong families are the driving force of its national vitality—where hard work is rewarded and success is praised, not envied.

Ten years on, my parents’ sacrifice is still a constant reminder of the important lessons I learned in Caracas and the blessings I enjoy here in America. Venezuela’s current struggle is fueled by people who yearn for similar blessings, and there is reason to hope for their success. As Maduro’s socialist regime wages merciless war on its own citizens—who are starved for food and freedom—pressure has continued to mount on him, and the strain is beginning to show.

Abroad, Venezuela’s regional allies, famous for turning a blind eye to abuses in exchange for financial incentives, have spoken out against Maduro’s violent repression. International organizations of large standing have rallied to penalize the regime in attempts to dissuade it from further escalating force against unarmed civilians.

In the U.S., President Donald Trump has swiftly acted to end his predecessor’s eight years of complicit silence, voicing support for political prisoners and issuing sanctions against corrupt officials.
This May Be Venezuela’s Tiananmen Square Moment 

In spite of being historically fractious, Maduro’s political opposition is now galvanized against him. They have sought to maintain momentum in the streets and have unanimously rejected Maduro’s attempt to rewrite the constitution. But perhaps the most telling sign of cracks in the internal regime is the attorney general’s unprecedented public break with the government.

History has repeatedly shown socialism to be a corrupt and destructive force, and there is no better example of this than in today’s Venezuela.

Trumps Moves to Reset The Middle East : Israel, Arabs Pivotal For Success

The question I have is how did congress allow Barack to ram his religious jihad for transformation of America ands the Middle East, as he promised in 2008 to become a reality? Barack's Iranian deal wasn't the first step in allowing the Persians of Iran to take total control of the middle east. It is the conclusion.

The first step was doing nothing to stop the Syrian catastrophe where more then 600,000 people have be killed so far, forcing millions of others to flee to Europe and other nations around the world.
And if one watches the hordes of mostly young men that dominate the refugees fleeing the war into the West, it readily becomes clear there is something else happening here that is not by accident but by design. 

With the continued terrorist killings occurring around the world, especially in the middle eastern countries like Iraq where hundreds are murdered by suicide bombers each time, but also now in Western nations like France and England where the governments are standing back fearful and apparently indifferent and unconcerned, compliant? to the killings.  

To understand what's happening, I believe it's necessary to see that the terrorist destruction and murders that are occurring are part of a larger strategy. Islam is beginning the necessary steps to bring the world to the feet of Muslim benefactors, with the intent of total capitulation of all nations of the West and elsewhere to acquiesce to Islamic ideology.

And with Israel being the only country powerful enough to stop the Iranians, Barack's strategy was to neutralize Israel by progressively lessening America's support and then allowing Iran a clear path to a nuclear weapons. Stand-off weapons for the Iranians to neutralizing Israeli influence in the area.

Barack's big stick of Iranian nuclear weapons, he believed was necessary  for controlling outcomes.

With Trump's trips to the middle east though and then Israel and Europe last week, I believe he signals a complete turnaround to Barack's religious jihad for Iranian takeover of the middle east that would bring chaos and conflict to that region and ultimately the rest of the free world.

Trump Signals a Reset Between Israel and US
Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / May 22, 2017   

It’s time to patch up America’s second “special relationship” after eight years of frayed feelings between the United States and Israel. That’s the message President Donald Trump is sending in his early-presidency trip to Israel and unprecedented visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem.

Trump said of his Monday visit to the Western Wall, a first for sitting American presidents, that the visit was potentially a path to a “deeper” friendship with Israel. Conflicts over policy and philosophy strained the relations between former President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and led to distrust between the two countries.

Watch the video : https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/866646408732053506

By going out of his way to entreat with Israel, Trump is at least signaling that a reset is in store.
Israel plays an essential role in American foreign policy—and not only in the Middle East. The war against radical Islamists has global implications in which the two countries have overlapping interests.

America’s Other ‘Special Relationship’
It is almost taken for granted today that Israel has been such a reliable foreign policy partner. This was only due to the careful diplomacy and alignment of key national and cultural interests between the two countries. The nature of this partnership in many ways mirrors the so-called “special relationship” between Great Britain and the United States. However, it is important to remember that before World War II, the U.S. and U.K. spent a century as mortal enemies and had deep reasons to distrust one another.

World War I pushed the U.S. and U.K. closer together after a century of suspicion and hostility. The fires of World War II and the Herculean efforts of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill sealed a the long-term collaboration between the countries—an example of the importance of wise statesmanship from American and British leaders.

It is important for American leaders to recognize and cultivate just such a relationship with Israel.
While the United States has always been supportive of Israel’s nationhood since 1948, the two countries were not always so intertwined. The complex nature of the Cold War in the Middle East occasionally put the U.S. and Israel at odds.

U.S.-Israel ties grew closer after Israel defeated a coalition of Arab states backed by the Soviet Union in the Yom Kippur War and the country proved itself to be a valuable Cold War ally. The wisdom of this cooperation is even more apparent after the rise of radical Islamist sentiment that became a cornerstone aspect of American foreign policy after the terrorist attack on 9/11. Israel was in a prime position to help combat this pernicious ideology, which has strong ties in the Middle East.

Countering Iran and Syria
Trump addressed a few major issues of immediate concern to the U.S. during his visit to Israel.
Of course, the thorn of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, and other radical, subnational Islamist groups in the region remain high on the U.S. agenda, and Israel is a key partner in destroying these factions. But the national threats of Syria and Iran, which have acted recalcitrantly toward the West and are well-known funders of terrorist groups, are of particular concern and also require close cooperation with Israel.

Trump has already shown that he is willing to make limited strikes in Syria to enforce the red line on chemical weapons. This action was strongly supported by Israel, and was seen as a rebuke to both Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria and also Iran. On Monday, Trump sent a strong message to Iran that its terror funding and nuclear ambitions would not be tolerated.
Where the Fight Against ISIS Stands, and How the US Can Win

As Middle East expert Jim Phillips argued in a recent Heritage Foundation report, “Iran remains the chief long-term regional threat to the U.S. and Israel.” Trump has not yet followed through on his promise to tear up the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, pending a formal policy review of whether the nuclear deal advances vital American national interests. Nevertheless, Trump said in a speech that Iran was guilty of “deadly funding, training, and equipping of terrorists and militias,” and that it acted inappropriately after the deal took place.

As Phillips noted, it is vitally important to either change the terms of this treaty or step away from it entirely to stem Iran’s “continued support for terrorism, expanding ballistic missile program, and deepening military intervention in Syria.” Israel is among the most important counterweights to this hostile regime in the Middle East, especially in upholding economic sanctions and controlling arms flowing to and from Iran.

The ‘Ultimate Deal’
Trump made numerous commitments regarding Israel during the campaign. Currently, his promise to officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move an American embassy there has failed to materialize. This remains a thorny issue for the Palestinians in particular. It would also create a challenge for Trump’s desire to broker the “ultimate deal” between Israel and the Palestinians.
Trump has expressed a desire to create some kind of lasting solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an issue that has become a white whale for American presidents from Jimmy Carter to Obama. All of these attempts have failed to achieve any kind of lasting peace, and some have exacerbated the conflict.

A more realistic approach would be to seek an interim agreement to make incremental progress on addressing Israeli security concerns and facilitating Palestinian economic development, which would help restore mutual trust and create a more supportive environment for later addressing touchy final status issues.

Sticking points like the “right of return” for Palestinians, the status of Jerusalem, the future of Israeli settlements, and the redrawing of borders are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, given the glaring lack of trust and wide gaps in the negotiating positions of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Republicans In Charge Of Fixing Public Debt? : Are We Screwed?

The fear, of course, for those of us that understand, at least in a small way, that if nothing is done to stop the bleeding from the treasury our country for the problem of paying for everyone that is now taking their share of Social Security and other guaranteed public funding's, and the million more coming on line in the near future to get their slice of the pie, it becomes a financial fact we  will become a just another third world sewer like Venezuela that is in the throes of total collapse and default. 

It also becomes clear to the trench dwellers, our congressional representatives are unwilling and or are incapable of making decisions that will turn this financial nightmare around.

Worse, with Republicans in change at all levels of government, one might believe we can count on them to do what they say is necessary to fix the problem, but with the history as our witness over the last decades, Republicans have failed miserably do the right thing when it counts. 

You're right, I'm a pessimist. But in the end, again, if history is any predictor of the future, with Republicans in charge, failure to deliver is assured.

If there is a any light at the end of the tunnel, it will depend on Trump and some cool heads in congress to kick open the door and  throw back the heavy curtains fear and pestilence from media and progressive socialist democrats, to flood the room with common sense and logic that might save our country from ruin.

But don't hold your breath waiting for these clowns to make their move as we need ever one on te outside with actual common sense to remain healthy that can take the levers of power when the need is most critical. Say tuned.

Just breath, that's it, just breath -

How Fast US Public Debt Will Grow If We Don’t Change Course
Romina Boccia / @RominaBoccia / May 22, 2017   

A fiscal storm has been brewing over America for years, and things are only getting worse.
Publicly held debt—the debt the U.S. is borrowing from credit markets (as opposed to debt owed to federal trust funds like Social Security)—is at its highest level as a percentage of gross domestic product since World War II.

To address the problem, Congress and the president must work together to enact a responsible, pro-growth budget that puts spending and taxes on a sustainable path to balance. Budget cuts in President Donald Trump’s proposal to Congress this week are a key step on that path.

Our Fiscal Condition
America’s annual deficit—the difference between what the government spends and collects in taxes each year—is projected to rise steeply over the coming decade and to continue growing from there.
The deficit is projected to surpass $1 trillion in nominal terms before the 10-year mark, and then to keep rising.

In terms of the size of the economy, deficits are projected to rise from 2.9 percent of gross domestic product this year to 9.8 percent 30 years from now. Deficits reached this level at the height of the Great Recession, but current projections assume the deficit will rise to such levels even without another severe economic crisis. Instead, a combination of demographic changes and health care costs, combined with projected growth in interest on the debt, is driving this fiscal explosion.
Read The Heritage Foundation’s “Blueprint for Balance: A Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2018”

Absent a course correction, the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections show the debt will rise from 77 percent of gross domestic product today to a staggering 150 percent of GDP by 2047—almost double the current level.

Such high and growing debt is unsustainable and carries several risks for American prosperity. Research shows that high and growing debt is associated with lower economic growth, which translates into lower business and individual income growth, and fewer opportunities for all Americans.

Action Is Required
Trump has put economic growth at the top of his presidential agenda, and this goal is directly reflected in the president’s proposed budget. According to White House sources, “the policies in [Trump’s] Budget would drive down spending and grow the economy. By 2027, when the budget reaches balance, publicly held debt will be reduced to 60 percent of GDP, the lowest level since 2010, when the economic policies of the last administration took effect.”
Trump’s ‘Skinny’ Budget Paves Way for a Leaner Government

Congress and the president should work together to realize a fiscally responsible, pro-growth budget agenda.
This includes immediate cuts to unnecessary and improper spending; reforms to bring health care, welfare, and other entitlement spending under control; and tax reform that reduces harmful distortions to saving, investing, and producing in the United States.

It’s not too late for the U.S. to avert a full fiscal nightmare, and Trump’s presidency and a Republican-controlled Congress present a unique opportunity for long-needed reforms.
Time will tell if the administration and Congress do what the moment calls for.

Note: This article was corrected to remove confusion between the U.S. national debt and publicly held debt.

Planned Parenthood Contradiction : Video Exposes The Fraud

What ever happened to the very bed rock foundation of liberalism's diversity of thought and all inclusiveness that has been trumpeted all the time from the progressive socialists? All of a sudden it isn't about 'we all one big family living together and singing songs of freedom to be who you are'?

Now it's our way or the highway? Yeah, well, this is nothing new or different. It has always been this way and always will be. These are not nice people even though progressives proclaim themselves saviors of the middle class and the world of women's rights.

Something is terribly wrong about all this. And $500 million taxpayer dollars assisting in all this?

Undercover Video Exposes Deep Contradiction at the Heart of Planned Parenthood
Jay Hobbs / May 22, 2017   

Though buoyed by well over $500 million in taxpayer dollars each year, Planned Parenthood offers little else in medical services beyond abortion—despite its rhetoric that would suggest otherwise.
This was made especially clear in Live Action’s video, released on Wednesday.

Watch the video : https://youtu.be/FCZlsQStC2E

When Live Action called Planned Parenthood clinics asking for other services ranging from prenatal care to adoption to parenting resources, staff at seven of the clinics said to “just go online” or “just Google” those services.

In two especially chilling moments in the video, Planned Parenthood staffers tell women who are looking for an ultrasound that they don’t actually provide ultrasounds—not unless the plan is to take the baby’s life through abortion, that is. “We don’t do any ultrasounds for prenatal care,” a staff member at a Council Bluffs, Iowa, Planned Parenthood tells a caller. “We do them when we’re doing abortions, but not for any other reason.”

The news that Planned Parenthood is, at its core, an abortion business isn’t exactly earth-shattering.
A graphic at the end of Live Action’s video shows that the corporation “performs” nearly 35 percent of all abortions in the U.S. compared with less than 2 percent of breast exams, less than 1 percent of pap smears, and less than two percent of cancer screenings.

In fact, another video Live Action released back in January caught 92 Planned Parenthood locations admitting the fact that they do not offer prenatal care, which is in direct contradiction to spurious, repeated claims by company CEO Cecile Richards.

To Planned Parenthood’s credit, staff at one of those 92 locations that doesn’t offer prenatal care did have the presence of mind to refer a client to a local pro-life pregnancy center. A blind squirrel can occasionally find a nut, after all.

Tipping the Scales for Abortion
But Wednesday’s video exposes more than initially meets the eye. Yes, Planned Parenthood does abortions on a highly disproportionate number of its patients, and yes, you’d have a better chance of finding a three-legged ballerina than a Planned Parenthood that provides prenatal care. But beyond that, the video shows that even while Planned Parenthood staffers send women to the internet to look for alternatives to its “services,” the abortion chain’s lobbyists are working overtime to undermine those alternatives—even if it means trampling the free speech of pro-life pregnancy centers.

In California and Hawaii, for instance, pro-abortion supermajorities have passed legislation that would force Christian nonprofit pregnancy centers—including those operated in and by local churches—to advertise taxpayer-funded abortions at the very outposts set up to offer an alternative to the deadly practice. The California law is likely headed to the Supreme Court, while Hawaii’s legislation sits on the governor’s desk awaiting his signature.

In Illinois, the situation is even grimmer, as the state is attempting to force pro-life medical professionals not only to advertise abortions, but to actually cultivate a list of known abortion providers within a local proximity and be ready to hand the list over to a client.

Where Will Pregnant Women Hear About Alternatives?
This, of course, violates every tenet of free speech and free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment, and pro-life attorneys have argued as much in court, gaining a preliminary victory in Illinois while the state and federal courts sort out the case.

On a practical level, pro-life lawmakers and lawyers have regularly argued that the disclaimers and referrals are unnecessary because abortion business listings are so easy to find on the internet or through the Yellow Pages—which would seem to meet the on-the-ground standard of care offered by Planned Parenthood.

Questioned whether a pro-life doctor or nurse could simply direct a client to look in the Yellow Pages rather than cultivate and distribute a list of abortion businesses, Lorie Chaiten of the American Civil Liberties Union told one Illinois House committee that idea was anathema back on May 13, 2015.
“So, I would like to think that a health care professional wouldn’t just hand the Yellow Pages,” Chaiten said. “This is about the patients really just not knowing where to turn.”

If the witch hunt against alternatives to abortion really was about making sure women knew where to turn, wouldn’t we expect Planned Parenthood’s brass to come unglued in reaction to revelations that its own staff sends women to the dreaded internet—or worse yet, the Yellow Pages—for information?

Of course, that’s not what this is about at all, and we can thank Live Action for yet another arrow of truth we can add to the quiver.

Commencement Speakers Chosen by Ideology, Not Diversity

Conservatism, Capitalism,  free markets and individual freedom are a dirty words to the ''new world'' progressive socialists that seem to be leading the charge for Barack's religious jihad for transformation that he promised way back in 2008. Barack's philosophy and ideology is still alive and moving forward. And Barack is still at it's head. 

As the author here points out, it is realistic to believe that the next generation will have profound effect on how we live our lives in a civil society governed by our Constitution, or whether we or not we survive at all as a free nation.

Here’s How Many of the Top 100 Colleges Are Having Conservative Commencement Speakers
Katrina Trinko / @KatrinaTrinko / May 22, 2017   

Diversity of thought continues to be decidedly unpopular at America’s top institutions of higher education. According to a new survey from Young America’s Foundation, top colleges invited 45 liberal commencement speakers this year … and a measly four conservatives. (Not all of the universities, which were drawn from U.S. News and World Report’s list, had announced a commencement speaker. Others had multiple speakers or speakers without clear ideological viewpoints.)

The four conservatives are Vice President Mike Pence, who spoke Sunday at the University of Notre Dame; Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer; sports commentator Ernie Johnson; and Mayor G. T. Bynum of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The liberals include former Vice President Joe Biden; Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg (who recently donated $1 million to Planned Parenthood); New York Times columnist Frank Bruni; and comedian Will Ferrell.

Of course, these numbers aren’t surprising. But they’re still concerning. And while the media is fixated on the hundred or so students who walked out of Pence’s speech at Notre Dame (never mind the vast majority who stayed seated), the bigger story is the lack of ideological diversity at America’s colleges. Consider these facts:

— “By 2014, liberal identifiers [among college faculty members] jumped to 60 percent, with moderates declining to 30 percent and conservatives to just 10 percent,” wrote Samuel J. Abrams, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, in The New York Times. In other words, for every one conservative professor, there’s about six liberal ones.
— A 2007 survey found that “Faculty members were more likely to categorize themselves as moderate (46.1 percent) than liberal (44.1 percent). Conservatives trailed at 9.2 percent,” reports Inside Higher Ed.

I have no doubt many liberal professors believe themselves to be open-minded and perhaps even cultivate classrooms where conservative students feel free to speak and make their case. But for nonpolitical students, having almost entirely liberal or moderate professors may further solidify their liberal or moderate mindset—and they’ll never have to encounter a solid argument from the other side. And that’s a shame.

After all, too many millennials these days may be rejecting conservative principles not because they have found those principles unpersuasive, but because they’ve never been exposed to a serious argument advancing them.

Universities once prided themselves on freedom of thought. It’s too bad they’ve become such safe spaces for conventional liberal thinking.

In his speech at Notre Dame, Pence decried just that, saying, “Far too many campuses across America have become characterized by speech codes, safe zones, tone policing, administration-sanctioned political correctness—all of which amounts to nothing less than suppression of the freedom of speech.” “As you, our youth, are the future, and universities, the bellwether of thought and culture,” he added. “I would submit that the increasing intolerance and suppression of the time-honored tradition of free expression on our campuses jeopardizes the liberties of every American.”

Pence is right that the lack of diversity of thought in colleges could have long-term effects. Culture matters—and if colleges were more interested in spurring intellectual debate and discussion, commencement speakers would be a lot more ideologically diverse.

Rosie Becomes Obsessed With Ivanka : 'Don't Tell Me What to Wear!'

Her size is in question now that the first lady and Ivanka set new limits for style and fashion. Hillary and Michelle are no longer setting the standard. So looking like you don't have a chance of wearing cloths designed for other body type isn't reason to become nasty and defensive. Just be who you are and be happy. Don't obsess on what other people are doing with their lives.

Yeah, I know, for you it isn't just about body sizeism, it's the larger issue that you are totally irrelevant now. Relax. Be someone that understands it isn't important to be found as ''out of the loop'' or a ''nonperson''. It's just easier being a nobody that way. 

Hey! Slide into oblivion with grace, not with noise and profundity.