Thursday, May 25, 2017

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 /    

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 / /    

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.

New York State Senator Plans Destruction of NRA : Who Knew? Yikes!


Why would some one want to attack and destroy the NRA? Especially when you have been living in the back room of a McDonalds for most or your life. Can your problemsit always be someone else's fault for your current condition.

And pivoting the conversation to those nasty people at the NRA who don't understand who is actually in control of everything, isn't always a good idea when you are such a prime target yourself.

Just sayin' -

Maybe the good Senator has other problems? Not just the NRA?

Churches Deal With Squirrel Problems : Results Differ (Humor)

Okay, start the day with a smile - it's way past time to do that given our current climate of confusion and chaos.

The Squirrels vs. The Church

The Presbyterian church called a meeting to decide what to do about their squirrels. After much prayer and consideration, they concluded the squirrels were predestined to be there and they shouldn't interfere with God's divine will

At the Baptist church the squirrels had taken an interest in the
baptistery. The deacons met and decided to put a water slide on the baptistery and let the squirrels drown themselves. The squirrels liked the slide and, unfortunately, knew instinctively how to swim so twice as many squirrels showed up the following week.

The Methodist church decided that they were not in a position to harm any of God's creatures. So, they humanely trapped their squirrels and set them free near the Baptist Church. Two weeks later the squirrels were back when the Baptists took down the water slide.

But the Catholic Church came up with a very creative strategy. They baptized all the squirrels and consecrated them as members of the church. Now they only see them on Christmas and Easter.

Not much was heard from the Jewish synagogue; they took the first
squirrel and circumcised him. They haven't seen a squirrel since.
 

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Memorial Day : 'Freedom Means Having Notning else to lose'

''Freedom means having nothing else to lose''
Did we forget something for this weekend? Or for that matter many other days of the year where we stop and remember how we got our freedom to become prosperous and free.

And as I love this phrase from a 60's song sung by Janis Joplin, ''Me and Bobby McGee'', ''Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose'', we have to ponder current events and their impact on our country.

Now is a good time to begin the process of deciding who we are and where do we want to go from here?

Everyone must understand, once freedom is compromised as it is on our college campuses and in the major media today, and then it's lost to us. Do we just stand by and watch it be destroyed? What will result is freedom will be lost and it's return will be at best controversial and at the worst, gone. What will remain is a lot of gnashing teeth and finger pointing instead of looking in the mirror.

Edmund Burke said it best, 'For tyranny to succeed, all thst is needed is for good men to do nothing'.

FAA Regulation On Drones Found Unlawful : Court Ruling

Government bureaucratic overreach brought under control. But what happened here only as long someone is watching and took a stand. And this is especially gratifying to most of us that it was a citizen that decided their rights were being superseded by government bureaucrats and took action.

The system actually worked like it should, did and designed. The 'founders' have to be smiling.

Federal Drone Registry Declared Unlawful
Jason Snead / / John-Michael Seibler / /

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously declared Friday that the Federal Aviation Administration’s registry of recreational drone owners is “unlawful as applied to model aircraft.” As a result, hobby drone fliers across the nation no longer face the specter of $277,500 in civil and criminal fines, as well as jail time, merely for failing to identify themselves to the FAA.

In late 2015, the FAA for the first time made the decision to subject recreational drone fliers to mandatory registration. Beginning on Dec. 21—just days before Christmas—anyone who owned a drone weighing more than 0.55 pounds at takeoff (helpfully, the FAA indicated this was the equivalent of two sticks of butter) would be required to register themselves pursuant to a statute authorizing the registration of aircraft. To comply, hobbyists had to provide regulators with detailed personal information and pay a $5 registration fee. Flying a drone even a single inch above one’s own backyard before registering was deemed a federal felony.

At the time, the agency noted that surging demand for small quadcopters and other models of unmanned aircraft systems necessitated quick action. Taking advantage of the “good cause” exemption under the Administrative Procedure Act, the FAA bypassed the normal notice and comment process and pushed the registration rule into effect in a mere two months.

There was, however, one significant legal hurdle. As we wrote at the time, the FAA’s rushed regulatory action ran directly afoul of a statute passed by Congress, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act. Section 336 of that law specifically states that “the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.”

The agency has attempted to bypass this statutory prohibition by consistently claiming that the new rule was not, in fact, a new rule. The FAA always had authority to register model aircraft, this line of reasoning goes, but merely exercised discretion in opting not to.

How Hobbyists Become Felons
One drone owner, John Taylor, disagreed and filed suit. In the unanimous opinion by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Judges Robert Wilkins and Harry Edwards, the court was clear: “Taylor is right.”

In his opinion, Kavanaugh acknowledges the agency’s longstanding authority to register aircraft—a process that “is quite extensive, as one would imagine for airplanes.” Kavanaugh goes on to correctly note, though, that “the FAA has not previously interpreted the general registration statute to apply to model aircraft.”

Indeed, in 1981 the agency published Advisory Circular 91-57, “Model Aircraft Operating Standards,” and made compliance entirely voluntary. A 2007 notice published in the Federal Register espoused a new regulatory scheme for drones, subdividing them into public, commercial, and recreational aircraft, and prohibiting flights “without specific authority … For model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57.”

In other words, as the court pointed out, the 2007 “notice did not alter the longstanding voluntary regulatory approach for model aircraft”—an approach which Congress codified in Section 336 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act. But is the registry requirement a rule promulgated in violation of the “clear statutory restriction on FAA regulation of model aircraft,” as Taylor alleged, or merely a decision to “enforce a pre-existing statutory requirement,” as the FAA contended?

To answer this, the court looked first to the definition of “rule” contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, finding that the registry was indeed a “statement of general or particular applicability … designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy.” It then considered the scope of the registration requirement, which includes “model aircraft” and defines the term identically to its definition in the 2012 law. For the court, this could lead to only one conclusion:
In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA ‘may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,’ yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a ‘rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.’ Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft. (Emphasis added)
The court found the FAA’s counter arguments “unpersuasive.” The registry requirement was no mere ending of enforcement discretion, but a “rule that creates a new regulatory regime for model aircraft,” replete with “new requirements” for hobbyists and “new penalties” to which those hobbyists are subjected.

A Victory for the Rule of Law
The judges’ swift dismissal of this line of reasoning is hardly surprising. In one telling exchange at oral argument, the FAA asserted that the rule was merely an enforcement of existing law that the 2012 statute in no way hindered, prompting one judge to retort, “You’re just making stuff up. That’s not what the statute says.”

FAA arguments that the registration rule is needed on policy grounds were similarly rejected. Though “[a]viation safety is obviously an important goal,” the court noted that judges are bound to “follow the statute as written.” In other words, if federal law is to be rewritten, it is neither a judge nor a regulator who is constitutionally empowered to do so. That responsibility falls squarely—and exclusively—on the shoulders of Congress.

The FAA’s recreational drone registry may have been struck down, but its commercial drone regulations were not at issue, and remain in force. The FAA’s ability to preserve the integrity and safety of the national airspace is similarly unaffected. Section 336(b) of the 2012 law affirms the “authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.”

Friday’s opinion out of the D.C. Circuit is thus a victory not only for Taylor, but for the rule of law itself. Hundreds of thousands of hobby fliers who, only this morning, were subject to arbitrary and extreme federal criminal penalties have been granted a reprieve—at least for now. It remains to be seen whether the FAA will appeal. Hopefully, though, the agency will treat the decision as a learning opportunity rather than a speed bump, and re-hew its drone policy to the letter and spirit of the law.

Entitlement Reform to Balance The Budget : Trump's Budget Makes Hard Decisions

Goodness - the Republicans have stated that Trump's budget is ''dead on arrival''.  I guess what it looks like is the Republicans are heading back to their ''safe spots'' under their collective desks until the adults in the room have come to some decision on entitlements.

Without entitlement reform there will be not balanced budget or for that matter no real solution to our financial problems and our future viability as a free nation.

After all, the progressive socialists democrats have demonstrated they had no intention of doing the heavy lifting to bring America to some kind of prosperity as they never, over Barack's 8 years at the levers of power even presented a budget, let alone one that was balanced.

Barack's and the progressive's socialists idea to make hard decisions was to increase the national debt by more the $7 trillion dollars while they were in power and for prosperity, the Gross National Product, GNP averaged 1.7%. A total lack of responsibility for the country.

Why vote for more democrats? At least we know where to find the Republicans.

The Major Entitlement Overhaul That Could Be Part of Trump’s Budget
Fred Lucas / /    

President Donald Trump’s budget proposal, to be rolled out Tuesday, likely will include Medicaid reform. But with several approaches having been floated, definitive answers will have to wait until the White House releases the fiscal plan.

During his Senate confirmation hearings in January, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said he would look at changes to Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor.
Medicaid covers about 70 million low-income Americans. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia expanded eligibility for Medicaid under Obamacare. When serving as House Budget Committee chairman as a congressman from Georgia, Price advocated giving Medicaid funds to states in block grants as a way of providing more flexibility.

“Block grants would save the federal government money, but would shift that cost to the states,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan research group in Washington, told The Daily Signal. “When a state has more skin in the game, will it be more cost-effective? Yes. But perhaps not enough to deal with the new expense.”

Another solution, Goldwein said, is to cap “provider taxes,” which states impose on health care providers. He said states use the tax to get more money from the federal government without losing revenue. The federal government prevents states from taxing health providers more than 6 percent.
He said most states make deals with hospitals to increase Medicaid payments in exchange for taxing the hospital by the same amount, then go to the federal government presenting a need for a larger subsidy based on the larger payment from the state to the hospitals. “If you phased [the state provider taxes on hospitals] out to 0 percent, it would save $100 billion” on Medicaid, Goldwein said. “If you cut to 5.5 percent, it would save about $10 billion.”

Fiscal hawks long have argued that the federal government’s main entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—are the key drivers of the national debt and deficit spending.
In March, four Republican governors—John Kasich of Ohio, Rick Snyder of Michigan, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas—touted their own proposal to reform Medicaid.

In a letter to Congress, the four governors said any reform should have work requirements, allow options on eligibility and what drugs are covered, and continue to allow the Medicaid expansion that occurred under Obamacare.

A better solution would be for the government to provide premium supports to encourage people to move on to private health insurance plans, said Robert Moffitt, senior fellow for health policy at The Heritage Foundation. “Able-bodied Medicaid recipients, we’re not talking about someone who is disabled or in a nursing home, could receive a defined premium support to be mainstreamed into private insurance,” Moffit told The Daily Signal. This would accomplish two things—reducing spending and helping patients, he said:
This Medicaid population would then have access to more doctors, since most doctors take private insurance and fewer are taking Medicaid. This population is also relative younger, which usually has a positive impact on the insurance pool. That could drive down cost for the rest of the American population.
About 11.5 million of the 70 million Medicaid recipients are able-bodied adults, according to government data.

In their recently passed American Health Care Act, House Republicans adopted a Heritage Foundation policy proposal that would change Medicaid to a per capita cap on funding for states that would be limited to medical inflation plus 1 percent. Medicaid recipients’ access to doctors has become more limited, according to a study last year that found 1 in 3 available physicians don’t see Medicaid patients.

The White House Office of Management and Budget did not respond to email inquiries Friday from The Daily Signal about whether, and which, Medicaid reforms would be part of the budget proposal.
“I assume the reform will probably be tied to the House Budget Committee, and would propose to block-grant Medicaid, as the House Republican budget has proposed for years,” Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Signal.

Edwards said he also anticipates the Trump administration will go after waste, fraud, and abuse for all entitlements, including Social Security and Medicare. Doing so could save tens of billions of dollars, but still make only a little dent in budget deficits or the debt.

A report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, released Friday, dismissed tackling waste as a long-term solution. The report by the private group says:
Importantly, there is no way to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid even close to sustainable simply by reducing fraud. However, broadly defined program integrity—for example, reducing excessive provider payments and using competition or negotiation to get better prices in Medicare, restricting the ability of states to inflate their federal match in Medicaid, or encouraging and helping workers with disabilities return to work in Social Security—can represent a starting point for entitlement reform. Still, it would be impossible to fix Social Security and Medicare solely through program integrity—even using a broad definition—and, ultimately, tough choices will need to be made to bring the costs of these programs under control.
Of the three main entitlements, Medicaid is the most sustainable, Moffit said. “You can’t get control of federal debt and deficits unless you address Social Security and Medicare,” Moffit said. “Otherwise, it’s just not going to happen.”

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Dodd/Frank Banking Bill Reform : Freeing The Financial Markets

I find it ironic if not incomprehensible to believe placing the two people that were fundamental in causing the financial crash back in 2009, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank being placed charge of fixing the problem they created.

Remember how Ogbjma was quick to take the podium and declare he will fix the problems that plaque our country, problems that he created but now he will fix? It was a win win for Barack.

But hey, this isn't all the difficult to understand, it was never about fixing a problem, it was always about control.

Dodd-Frank Has Crippled Our Economic Recovery. This Bill Would Unleash Real Growth Again.

Sondra Clark / /    

Have you noticed that free checking accounts are now nearly nonexistent, and locally owned stores are increasing the $5 minimum charge on debit cards? These are not the result of some financial conspiracy. They are a direct result of Dodd-Frank regulations.

After the financial crash of 2008, President Barack Obama decided to increase the role of the federal government in the economy and impose massive new regulations on banks. As one might assume, this hasn’t worked out so well.

Included in the over 3,500-page Dodd-Frank bill are rules restricting access to credit for investors and homebuyers, raising lending costs for entrepreneurs, and making it harder for small businesses to get capital to start or grow.

Dodd-Frank also created the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. This agency has carte blanche to create huge economic rules and regulations, and little accountability.

The bureau doesn’t have to get spending or regulation approval from anyone in Congress, and the White House has no say over who the director is, and can’t fire or put checks on the bureau’s leaders.
Practically speaking, the president of the bureau has more autonomy and unregulated power to regulate than even the Treasury secretary or the IRS director.

In summary, Dodd-Frank has been cited by economists as the primary reason America has had a historically slow economic recovery since 2008.

Reform Is Urgently Needed
Enter the Financial CHOICE Act (or the Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers, and Entrepreneurs Act), which was introduced this April by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas. The CHOICE Act takes positive steps forward in repealing Dodd-Frank, restoring economic stability in America, and allowing financial markets to grow and thrive. According to the House Financial Services Committee website, the bill would:
… end taxpayer-funded bailouts of large financial institutions; relieve banks that elect to be strongly capitalized from growth-strangling regulation that slows the economy and harms consumers; impose tougher penalties on those who commit financial fraud; and demand greater accountability from Washington regulators.
There are three major benefits to the CHOICE Act:
1. Repeals the most harmful parts of Dodd-Frank.
The CHOICE Act repeals most of Title I and all of Title VIII of Dodd-Frank. These were the most harmful sections that solidified the “too big to fail” policies that led to massive taxpayer bailouts. Additionally, it would repeal Title II, stopping the government from seizing troubled financial firms and putting them back in the hands of a time-tested bankruptcy system.
2. Enhances checks and balances.
The CHOICE Act would fundamentally reform the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by putting it under congressional oversight and a proper appropriations process. It would also rein in the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending authority, making it more difficult for the Fed to conduct bailout-style loans. In addition, it would put any new major rule by financial regulatory agencies to congressional approval as part of the REINS Act (or Regulatory from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act).
3. Allows small business and free markets to thrive.
The CHOICE Act would unleash small business creation, innovation, and entrepreneurship by eliminating rules that limited capital formation over the last few years. It would also strengthen penalties on Wall Street for engaging in fraud, insider trading, and other corrupt practices.

The Democratic Obstacle to Reform
The CHOICE Act will go to a full floor vote in the next few weeks. The major obstacle to passage is the Durbin Amendment. This amendment, which is part of Dodd-Frank, is a price control on debit card swipe fees that banks charge to retailers.

When someone uses a debit card, they are charged what is known as an interchange fee, which goes directly to the bank that issued the card as payment for facilitating the transaction. The Durbin Amendment placed a cap on interchange fees, thus limiting the compensation that banks can receive from them. Retailers suggested this would save consumers money, but the real outcome suggests otherwise. In fact, many small businesses now require minimums on debit card purchases, and banks no longer offer free checking and sometimes increase monthly fees.

Liberals justify the Durbin amendment with hollow rhetoric, saying “it helps consumers” or that “small businesses benefit.” But the reality is that it’s simply a price control that limits small businesses and entrepreneurs from thriving, and it should be repealed.

Congress has a responsibility to let free markets thrive and lead to economic prosperity. Conservatives should support efforts to roll back these damaging Dodd-Frank regulations so that our small businesses can have the freedom to truly flourish.

Homeless Nonprofit Making A Differecne : Ogbjma Government Says No to Success

As a consequence of efforts by the Ogbjma administration to drag down the society and render it a unproductive, useless and therefore subjecting the disadvantaged to government control by illogical regulations designed to make the poor remain poor and controlled.

Similar to illegal immigrants that find themselves at the mercy of the Ogbjma government that demanded obedience to their control, this organization, a homeless nonprofit, was attacked by government demands because they didn't succumb to its suffocating over reach.

The best part in all of this progressive thinking and ideology is the nonprofit stood it ground believing its founding principles were good and workable. The proof is in the pudding as the saying goes. Solutions for Change is a workable and successful operations, unlike most government organization.

Family Homeless Nonprofit Forced to Choose Between Government Funding And Drug-Free Policy
Kelsey Harkness / /

VISTA, CALIF.—Growing up, Teena Faison never imagined she’d find herself a single mom and homeless. “We didn’t wake up one day and go, ‘Hey, I just want to be homeless with my kids,’” she told The Daily Signal “No. There’s many, many contributing factors to that—lack of education, lack of resources, addiction.”

At 34 years old, Faison decided to change her ways and go to Solutions for Change, a nonprofit for homeless families in Vista, California, 45 minutes outside San Diego. Instead of simply providing a place to sleep, Solutions for Change takes a holistic approach to solving homelessness. It requires residents to go through counseling, take courses in financial literacy, parenting, leadership, and anger management, and eventually, get a job.

Over the past 17 years, Solutions for Change has gotten 1,200 families off government assistance and back on their feet. But because it requires residents to adhere to certain accountability standards such as staying sober, Solutions for Change is ineligible to receive federal government program funding. As a result, they have foregone $600,000.

Watch the video to learn more about Solutions for Change and why it chose to keep the drug-free policy instead of accepting taxpayer dollars.

The headline of this piece was changed to clarify Solutions for Change’s funding.

Watch the video : https://youtu.be/Le_TgIAwtn0

Monday, May 22, 2017

New Balanced Budget Proposal Over 10 years : Changing the Norm

I find this to be extraordinary in that we have gone for 8 years without a budget from 'the glorious One we have all been waiting for' without any outrage from either side of the aisle. This outrageous behavior has netted more then $7 trillion dollars of new debt.

But now with Trump's initial  budget proposal featuring cuts in many programs that over the past decades have been off limits, and with the coming actual budget already finding critics lining up to attack the proposal, actually doing anything of substances seems a very tough row to hoe or Republicans especially the progressive media on board to kill it..

Trump Expected to Propose Plan to Balance Budget in 10 Years
Fred Lucas / /    

President Donald Trump likely will propose a plan next week calling for a balanced budget in 10 years, fiscal experts predict. It also will address how to fund the border wall, higher defense spending, and other Trump initiatives over the next decade. “Many Republicans have been calling for a 10-year balanced budget,” Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Signal. “One way they may show savings for that 10-year period is through management and downsizing reform efforts.”

Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, took an initial step last month in rolling out government reforms that the administration intends to expand on later this year.
A budget proposal that allows a president to demonstrate how committed he is to campaign pledges and gives a glimpse of plans to make $54 billion in cuts to foreign aid and nondefense discretionary spending is a good sign, Edwards said.

“One role of a federal budget proposal is for the president to create a bully pulpit to argue for cuts,” Edwards said. “Even if Congress doesn’t go along with phasing out things such as NPR [National Public Radio] and PBS [Public Broadcasting Service] this year, proposing this creates a needed national discussion.”

A balanced budget plan would be a significant departure from the previous administration. A major Republican criticism of President Barack Obama was that he never proposed a single balanced budget plan during his eight years in office. Still, without entitlement reforms and with projected increases for infrastructure spending, projecting a balanced budget in 10 years would be based on very optimistic economic assumptions, said Romina Boccia, deputy director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“If the OMB numbers are higher than what the [Congressional Budget Office] and nonpartisan assessments are reflecting, it might be questionable. Balancing in 10 years relies heavily on economic growth,” Boccia told The Daily Signal. Trump and Mulvaney have said their goal is for the United States to surpass 3 percent annual growth again.

Mulvaney, who announced the budget would be released Tuesday, is set to address a hearing of the House Budget Committee on Wednesday. The Senate Budget Committee calendar doesn’t yet include Mulvaney. An OMB spokesperson told The Daily Signal that the office is still working on the rollout and would have details later. The White House released a budget blueprint in March that focused only on the fiscal year 2018 budget. But next week, the fiscal plan will project out for the next decade.

The fiscal 2018 plan addressed only discretionary spending. The proposal to be released Tuesday will look at the other two-thirds of the budget, which is mandatory spending and mostly goes to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Both Edwards and Boccia anticipate that the proposal will address fraud in the Medicaid and Social Security disability programs. Among details the public will learn more about:
  • The 10-year budget will provide a better idea of how Trump plans to pay for the wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. The fiscal 2018 blueprint calls for a down payment of $1.5 billion.
  • The fiscal 2018 proposal included a $54 billion increase in the military budget, to $603 billion, offset by cuts to foreign aid. Next week’s plan will show how much military spending would grow over 10 years.
  • The plan reportedly aims to invest in school choice programs and scale back funding for public schools.
The president’s budget proposal is largely a vision statement, Boccia said. Lawmakers on the House and Senate budget committees likely will be eager to see how proposals for tax reform and reorganizing the government will affect future years, and how that in turn affects budget negotiations, she added.

Fixing College Financing : States Taking Control

Good start Senator Lee! Get the federal government out of the decision making process, truing back the decision making to the states. Anything we can do to limit the interference of big government bureaucrats in our civil society will be a real fix for any problem we have, especially financing higher education.

With a debt of more then $1.4 trillion dollars facing taxpayers and students, it's long past due to do the heavy lifting to fix the problem. Anything less will result in the system in default.

The 1 Change the Government Could Make to Drive Down College Prices
Sen. Mike Lee / /    

Over the past 20 years, the price of wireless service has fallen 46 percent, the price of software has fallen 68 percent, the price of televisions has fallen 96 percent, and the quality of these services and technologies has improved markedly.

But over that same time, the price of college tuition has risen 199 percent, and most parents would agree that the quality has not greatly improved. But if prices typically fall as competition spurs quality advancement, as seen by the technological achievement of the last two decades, how has that not happened in education?

There is no one simple answer to this question, but the different regulatory environment facing higher education is a significant factor.

One hundred years ago, there were six regional, voluntary, nongovernmental institutions that helped universities and secondary schools coordinate curricula, degrees, and transfer credits. These institutions had no power to prevent the creation of higher education institutions. This changed with the 1952 GI Bill.

After congressional investigators found thousands of sham colleges were created overnight to take advantage of the benefits provided in the first 1944 GI Bill, the federal government turned these voluntary institutions into accreditors.

As the federal government steadily ramped up its financial support for higher education benefits, it continued outsourcing the vetting of higher education institutions to these regional accreditors.
This makeshift system worked well for decades, but in recent years these regional accreditors have come under heavy criticism for both lax oversight over some online institutions and a heavy hand in killing some promising innovations. No regulator is ever going to be perfect, but if they are going to be gatekeepers for a sector of the economy as important as higher education, they must be transparent and accountable to the American people.

Unfortunately, our nation’s regional accreditors are neither. They do not share how they make their accrediting decisions with anyone and their board members do not face accountability at the ballot box. This needs to change.

That is why I have introduced the Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act. This bill would allow states to create their own accreditation system for institutions that want to be eligible for federal financial aid dollars.

Each state could then be as open or closed to higher education innovation as they saw fit. They could even stick with their current regional accreditors if they chose to do so. But they could also enable innovators like Purdue University President Mitch Daniels, who recently signed a deal with the online provider Kaplan University, to go even further in their mission to expand higher education access to those who had limited access before.

Our higher education system should not be held captive to 100-year-old institutions that were never intended to be regulatory gatekeepers in the first place. Instead, we should allow those communities that want to experiment with higher education policy the freedom and accountability to do so.

Immigration Arrests Up 40% : Actually Criminals Arrested. Who Knew?

On no! Who Knew? Arresting people for breaking the law? Authorities actually enforcing the laws passed by representatives of the people seems a little more then just scary. Maybe we should all quickly find our safe space to contemplate the ugly ramification of such unheard of actions on the part our police and government officials.

But think about this for just a minute, this hasn't happen in over 8 years, and now here they are arresting actually criminals and deporting them on a grand scale. Actually enforcing the law of the land? Outrageous!

Immigration Arrests Jump Nearly 40% Under Trump
Will Racke / /    

Immigration arrests climbed yet again in April as federal agents continued to track down both criminal and noncriminal aliens in far greater numbers over the first 100 days of the Trump administration than they did under former President Barack Obama a year ago.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations deportation officers administratively arrested 41,318 illegal immigrants on civil immigration charges between Jan. 22 and April 29, according to agency data released Wednesday. That was a 38 percent jump over the 30,028 arrests made in the same time period in 2016, the final year of the Obama administration.
dcnf-logo
ICE says it has averaged about 400 arrests per day since President Donald Trump signed executive orders in January authorizing stepped-up immigration enforcement. “Agents and officers have been given clear direction to focus on threats to public safety and national security, which has resulted in a substantial increase in the arrest of convicted criminal aliens,” ICE acting Director Thomas Homan said in a statement. “However, when we encounter others who are in the country unlawfully, we will execute our sworn duty and enforce the law.”

The arrest data show a continuation of a trend that became apparent in the first two months of  Trump’s presidency. ICE arrested 21,362 illegal immigrants from Inauguration Day through March 13, about 33 percent more than the number of immigration arrests made in same period in 2016.
The growing number of arrests is partly due to the fact that ICE has been authorized to arrest all removable aliens, not just those convicted of serious crimes. The agency has recorded more than 10,800 arrests of noncriminal aliens so far in 2017, compared with about 4,200 in the first four months of 2016.

“While these data clearly reflect the fact that convicted criminals are an immigration enforcement priority, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly has made it clear that ICE will no longer exempt any class of individuals from removal proceedings if they are found to be in the country illegally,” ICE said in its report.

Despite the wider enforcement focus, immigration authorities are still prioritizing criminal aliens, according to ICE data. About 75 percent of those arrested during the period were convicted criminals, with offenses including homicide, sexual abuse, and drug-related charges. ICE has arrested 30,473 criminal aliens this year—20 percent more than the 25,786 arrested over the same period a year ago.
Illegal immigrants convicted of violent crimes such as homicide, rape, kidnapping, and assault accounted for more than 2,700 arrests, ICE said.
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, please email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Trump Must Be Destroyed : Chicken Little Speaks

When hate is the only driving force available, chaos is enviable.
Given the insanity that has taken over our news media outlets that are virtually unwatchable or readable, including maybe to some extent FOX News, the progressive socialist liberals, the new neo-communists have shown us all finally and once and for all just who they are what they intend for the rest of civil society.

In reality, for the rest of us that must live and work under the rule of law laid out in our Constitution that guarantees our freedom and liberty, and gives us as individuals the opportunity for prosperity and a life free from intimidation of an all powerful authoritarian centralized government, is now under attack from the progressive socialist liberal democrats that believe our Constitution is no longer useful or a legitimate document.

The democrats have now moved to destroy what past generation have built and died for without giving even the slightest thought to what has gone before and how it has built the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth.

The democrats don't care about all that nonsense. It's about regaining power by any means necessary even if it means the destruction of the country as it was founded.

Liberals Behind The Curtain Were All Sugar And Spice : Curtain Aside - Vinegar and Alum


Last year we didn't understand the liberals, now we do. They have come out.

Once deranged beyond a certain point and over a certain length of time, it is strongly believed one can not return to reality.

Once the investment in a fantasy is so strongly embedded in the individuals personality as reality, the fantasy actually becomes reality.

And to try and convince the afflicted that they are living a world of make-believe only invites harsh exchanges during a debate of opinions.

And what's more, it's likely the end result of stricken person's position will finally and ultimately have to use violence in their defense.

They will have no other place to go. As the factoid goes, "Progressive liberalism is indefensible by rational debate.''

So what's left after the first few minutes of discussion and debate?  A national crisis!


Proof of Collusion? : We Don't Need No Stinking Proof!


But it's not about proof or the facts, it's about the seriousness of the charge. Please explain how after more then a year of accusations of collusion there still isn't any proof. And if that's not enough, what did General Flin say or discuss with the Russians? It can't be secret as 16 federal agencies with thousands of employees have the full transcript as well as numerous newspapers.

Barack release it as soon as he got the information from the NSA intercept and National Security Advisor Rice to Barack had unmasked it.

But who cares, right. Politics is politics no matter how corrupt and damaging to our country. Millions of citizens are willing to accept this as the 'new normal'. But then again millions of citizens are waking up as well to the onslaught of those that wish to do the country harm.

Donald Trump won the presidency.

Proof? We don't need no stinking proof!


Willing And Ready to believe : The Media On The Attack

Out from the shadows and into the light of day. Chaos and Conflict.
Who are these people? Where do they come from and where are they going?

Actually, they have been here all along it just now they have come into the light of day because they believe their time has come to change civil society into what they believe is the only solution to freedom, life and liberty.

The progressives democrats believe it is an opportunity that presents itself only once in a life time.

With chaos and conflict reigning on all fronts brought on by enterprising believers in the collective, it is time to take advantage of that chaos to what they believe is their right to generational power no matter how destructive to our country.

The news media knows how to manipulate information to blame others for the destruction.
Unfortunately for the country, there are millions of citizens ready to believe anything that appears in the newspapers or on television as fact.

Make Choices Without Regret : It's The Only Way.

Sometimes mom isn't right. Impossible!
'Chose with no regret' or maybe some regret. It's life in the fast lane these days where you have to make decisions quickly and then live with the consequences.

Making choices is a learning experience, but only if your are aware that  making the best of those experiences is actually useful.

So make the best of those decisions knowing just around the corner a solution will present itself. It's an unwritten rule in life. Sometime it take a long time but the old saying 'What goes around comes around' is correct.

Patience is the key though. Hold fast, keep your head down, work hard and you will be rewarded with success. It always works that way and always will. 

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Progressives Wonder In Darkness Ranting Against the Light.


WOW - what happened to progressive socialist liberal left? I wonder if those in the position of metical knowledge in the area of unhingedness could or would explain how it happens that it was just less then a ago the progressives were all aglow with faith and healing, but now after the November election they are expressing an intellectually ability this side of a turnip.

Sadly, when your entire life's experience can be only expressed in a loud voice, you aren't seen as being ready for prime time. What is seen as normal behavior, the rest of us understand the real meaning of a behavior run-a-muck, that is to be understood as a pure form of insanity.

But what is so perplexing is that so many of our citizen are effected. What actually caused this malady to strike so quickly and so thoroughly is still under investigation by some of the best minds in the country. It is so previse that some politicians are calling for special congressional investigators to root out the cause before it becomes a nation wide health risk, a national security risk.

The special committee that was set up to oversee this investigation is sill waiting for a progress report.
Progressive democrats struggle with reality. It's just to Fearful.


U of California Berkeley Discussed : Extraordinary Insight And Brilliance


The university of California at Berkeley is discussed and explained by a world renowned expert and theologian. It is remarkable that such brilliance and foresightedness could be encompassed in one man.

How is it that he can know so much with insight and intelligence, while the rest of us just stand and wait? Doesn't it seem unfair somehow?

Know the truth and it will set you free.


Immigration Theory and The Rule of Law


I guess it all depends on ones point of view - if law and order is a solution to crime and obeying the law is a first step to making America great again, then yeah, we can deport all of the illegals. Hey, they are illegally in the country, they are breaking the law. Leave the country or go to jail. Simple enough,  right?

But in reality, it's a pipe dream and not necessary. What is necessary is stopping illegal immigration and maybe ending immigration entirely while those here assimilate. It was done before and it worked. So why not now?



Image may contain: 4 people, people smiling, people standing and text
Hope springs eternal for common sense and logic.

Trump Impeachment Demands Irresponsible : Democrat Politics of Destruction

The politics of destruction of our governmental system, our Constitution is underway by the progressive socialist liberal democrats, the neo-communists, for no other reason then they have been shown the door by the voters. The voters have found the democrats to be irresponsible and in many cases criminal. OgbjmaCare?

This is totally unacceptable for progressive socialists, as just a consequence of  some stupid electoral process, especially when progressive democrats that know they are born to power, and it's their right to control all outcomes are thrown into the abyss of powerless regular people.

In reality,  the democrats believe there is no amount of destruction to our civil society to great as a result of their attacks on our system of government, for the democrats to gain back power that the stupid voters took from them in November.

The consequences for this attack will be extreme and dire, cementing a permanent divide between those that believe our country is worth saving from destruction, and those that hate this country and want to destroy it. It is the subversion of the rule of law. It is no less  then insurrection brought on by the progressive democrats. Chaos and conflict will engulf our country.

Did you ever wonder why these people are still living in this country and willingly and knowingly calling themselves citizens of America that has given them everything they have? They have Freedom and prosperity and yet they are totally absorbed in hate and violence for everything and everyone that stands in the way of their personal hate.

If you find this theatric over the top, you haven't been watching the media and listening to the Washington politicians clamoring for the cameras to expressing their demands for destruction.

Trump Impeachment Proceedings Over Obstruction Charge Unlikely to Go Far, Analysts Say

Fred Lucas / /    

While Democrats cry for impeachment, legal experts are dubious that President Donald Trump’s reported conversation with FBI Director James Comey about his former national security adviser would be an easy case of obstruction of justice. “I don’t personally think any prosecutor would bring that case,” Ron Hosko, a former assistant FBI director for the bureau’s Criminal Investigative Division, told The Daily Signal, referring to the report that Trump suggested Comey, whom he later ousted, back off investigating Michael Flynn. “Any defense attorney could argue the president was wishing out loud,” Hosko said. “There was no killing a witness, no destruction of evidence.”

The New York Times first reported Tuesday on Comey’s purported memo of a February conversation in which Trump told him: “I hope you can let this go … [Flynn] is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Trump fired Flynn after six weeks on the job after concluding the national security adviser misled Vice President Mike Pence regarding the content of his contacts with Russian officials before the president’s Jan. 20 inauguration. The “big however,” Hosko said, is whether Trump’s May 9 firing of Comey could be connected to an effort to stop an FBI investigation. “The president can fire an FBI director for any reason or no reason,” said Hosko, now president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. “But, if evidence emerges that he fired Comey over the Flynn investigation or over the Russia investigation, now it becomes harder to defend.”

The Justice Department on Wednesday named another former FBI director, Robert Mueller, as a special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the presidential election. The FBI also is investigating Flynn’s contacts with Russia. Several House Democrats are using Comey’s purported memo on what Trump said to him to demand impeachment of the president—a highly unlikely scenario given Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, delivered a floor speech Wednesday about impeachment, though he didn’t sound convinced the president was guilty. Green noted that it is the Senate’s job to make that determination in a trial after the House adopts articles of impeachment against a president for high crimes and misdemeanors. “Impeachment does not mean the president will be found guilty,” Green said. “It simply means the House of Representatives will bring charges against the president.”

Democratic leadership in the House and Senate has not taken up the cause of impeachment, although an increasing number of partisan pundits are using the word. Even if there was a House majority to pass articles of impeachment against Trump, two-thirds of the Senate would have to agree on his removal from office after a trial. This would be a politically steep hill to climb, one presidential historian notes. Only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, have been impeached by the House, and both survived a Senate trial to serve out their terms.

The cases were quite different, but offer context for any such effort against Trump, said Larry Schweikart, a retired history professor at the University of Dayton who is author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents” and co-author of “How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution.”

“Andrew Johnson, for example, was impeached because he was as unpopular in Washington, as Trump is—but Johnson deliberately and blatantly went out of his way to violate a law so as to provoke impeachment as a test case,” Schweikart told The Daily Signal in an email. He stressed that Johnson had been Abraham Lincoln’s vice president, assuming office only upon Lincoln’s assassination, and “was a Democrat in a Republican administration that hated him.”

The economy shows signs of improving, Schweikart added, which means that even if Democrats gained a congressional majority, impeachment would be politically difficult. “The GOP actually opposed Clinton, while his own party supported him rabidly. But a similarity with Trump [is] the economy was booming,” Schweikart said. “Trump’s economy isn’t quite there yet, but it’s very, very hard to even undertake impeachment against a president who has a booming economy. Watergate did not turn [public opinion] against Nixon until the economy turned sour. Had Nixon had Clinton’s economy, he likely would have survived.”

Schweikart said perhaps 20 House Republicans are “committed to the swamp” and might be inclined to join Democrats in impeaching Trump, but he doubts they would take the political risk. Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., in response to a question from a reporter, said that trying to stop an investigation would be an impeachable offense, The Hill reported. But, Amash said, “everybody gets a fair trial.”
The key charge against Johnson was for the controversial firing of War Secretary Edwin Stanton, at the time considered a violation of the Tenure of Office Act. The statute, since invalidated by the Supreme Court, disallowed the firing of high-ranking government officials without Senate approval.

One of the two articles of impeachment against Clinton was obstruction of justice. Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, has prosecuted obstruction of justice cases, generally in the context of a drug dealer trying to make a witness change his story. Obstruction has a specific definition in the U.S. Code, Whitaker said. “Obstruction is a very technical crime with important elements to prove,” Whitaker, now executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, told The Daily Signal. “We don’t know enough, based on what we’ve seen of the memo.”

In remarks Wednesday to Coast Guard Academy graduates in New London, Connecticut, Trump didn’t directly talk about the obstruction allegation, but he took shots at his political opponents and the media. “Look at the way I’ve been treated lately, especially by the media. No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly. You can’t let them get you down,” Trump said, getting applause. “You can’t let the critics and the naysayers get in the way of your dreams. … I guess that’s why we won.”

David McIntosh, a lawyer and former House member from Indiana, argued during remarks at a Federalist Society conference Wednesday that Trump had both the authority to talk to Comey about an ongoing investigation and to fire him. McIntosh said:
President Trump acted appropriately if he gave guidance to Director Comey on an investigation. It is important for us to step back and remember that, under the Constitution, the president has the authority and power to enforce the laws. There’s nothing in the Constitution about an FBI director.
The FBI director reports to the president, and it is the president’s decision to delegate authority on investigations. In delegating that authority, presidents have wisely chosen to insulate the FBI from political interference. But the president still has the power and authority to direct the FBI how to do their job.
Congress, in its critiques of the executive branch, should not overstep and try to direct or limit the president’s legitimate exercise of his Article 2 powers.
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, requested that the FBI provide a physical copy of Comey’s memo to congressional investigators. Someone apparently read from the Comey memo to The New York Times reporter. Democrats likely know this is not a viable obstruction case, said Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice. Even if the Times story is entirely true, he said, “In the words of James Comey: No prosecutor would bring this case.”

Sekulow added:
Obstruction of justice is a loaded term. It’s political to create an impeachment scenario. The bar is lower, but we have a Republican Congress. This is just political warfare. It was enough to get the Washington media talking about it. … During the Obama years, when people would talk about impeachment, we’d always discourage that talk as no way to get things done.

Trump Expands Reagan Mexico Policy : No Taxpayer Dollars for Abortions Overseas

A policy to end the funding of abortion using taxpayer dollars over seas is a great idea as most of us in the trenches believe abortion under most circumstances is wrong. Another reason and little wonder then the  progressive socialist liberals hate Donald Trump.

Trump’s Expansion of Mexico City Policy Is a Major Victory in Protecting Life
Rep. Chris Smith / /    

Someday, future generations of Americans will look back on us and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect and enhance vulnerable human life, could have instead so aggressively promoted death to children by abortion—both here and overseas.

They will note that we prided ourselves on our commitment to human rights, while precluding virtually all protection to the most persecuted minority in the world today—unborn children.
And they will demand to know why dismembering a child with sharp knives, pulverizing an infant with powerful suction devices, or chemically poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals failed to elicit in so many so much as a scintilla of empathy, mercy, or compassion for the victims.
Abortion is violence against children, and hurts women.

This week, the Trump administration announced the implementation of the new Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy—a significant reiteration and expansion of President Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy.

Announced by Reagan at the United Nations Conference on Population Control in Mexico City in 1984—hence its name—the policy was and is designed to ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is not funneled to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush embraced the policy, while Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama nullified it.

Thirty-two years ago—in July of 1985—I authored the first of several successful annual amendments on the floor of the House of Representatives to preserve the Mexico City policy. Significantly, the old Mexico City policy only applied to family planning funds—over half a billion dollars. The new policy establishes pro-child safeguards—benign, humane conditions—on about $8.8 billion in annual global health assistance funding appropriated to the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of State and Defense. This funding includes not only family planning, but other global health assistance such as maternal and child health, malaria, and HIV/AIDs.

Also of significance, the new pro-child, pro-woman safeguards do not reduce funding for global health assistance by so much as a dollar. According to State Department guidance, the policy only applies to foreign NGOs as grantees or subgrantees. Other potential recipients of global health assistance grant money—including national and subnational governments—are exempt, as are refugee and migration assistance programs.

President Donald Trump’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy includes three abortion exceptions—for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Nothing in the policy prevents foreign NGOs from treating injuries or illnesses that were caused by any abortion.

For years, pro-abortion organizations have used U.S. taxpayer funds to weaken, undermine, or reverse pro-life laws in other nations and systematically destroy the precious lives of unborn children.
Scores of countries throughout the world have been besieged by aggressive and well-funded campaigns to overturn their pro-life laws and policies.

The Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy will significantly mitigate U.S. taxpayer complicity in global abortion. U.S. foreign policy—and the foreign entities we fund with billions of dollars in grant money—should consistently affirm, care for, and tangibly assist women and children.
We must increase access to maternal and prenatal care, and ensure access to safe blood and better nutrition.

We must also expand essential obstetrical services, including skilled birth attendants, while improving transportation to emergency care facilities to significantly reduce maternal mortality and morbidity—including from obstetric fistula. Prioritizing programs that ensure adequate nutrition and supplementation for moms and children during the all-important first 1,000 days of life—from conception to the second birthday—are among the most transformative, life-enhancing commitments that can be made.

Expanding these measures make women and children healthier, stronger, and more resilient to disease and disability while reducing death and injury. No one is expendable or a throwaway. Every human life has infinite value. Birth is merely an event, not the beginning of the life of a child.
The new Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy is inclusive of all people, regardless of their age, race, sex, disability, or condition of dependency—especially the weakest and most vulnerable.

Friday, May 19, 2017

Progressive Universities Infested by Fear And Hate : Cut The Funding! Walter E. Williams

Amen! Also, along with donors going on the cheap and federal money going to more productive causes, I believe it's time to tax endowments where the colleges and universities are hiding and protecting $billions of dollars from the tax man. It's time for them to use this stash to bring down the cost of higher education.

It's time for taxpayers to say, I'm going to send my children to schools that believe America is evil incarnate, worse, that believe America is worse then the Nazis that killed, murdered millions of Jews for other reason then they are Jews and anyone that opposed them.

But then let's understand  something that parallels the hate and violence at the university level as well, on the national scene, the process of unhinged hate that is playing out as we read these lines is happening in our media and  has infested one complete political collective, formally the democrat party. A collective that is based now on hate and violence to accomplish what they couldn't in the voting booth.

It is obvious to me the progressive socialist liberal democrats really do fear and hate the American people that have found their voice to demand enough of the  deceit, uncontrolled crime and pestilence in our civil society brought on by the ideology of in checked socialism.

So what is the difference in Washington and our universities, especially our elite schools that have been institutions of higher leaning for decades with proud reputations that are now no more then bastions of radical progressive socialist liberal ideology, and worse neo-communist propaganda? 

I see no difference. They are both disintragrating before our very eyes, and we who voted last November want it stopped! We want our country back.

Let’s Hit Left-Wing Colleges Where It Hurts. In the Pocketbook.
Walter E. Williams /    

Parents, taxpayers, and donors have little idea of the levels of lunacy, evil, and lawlessness that have become features of many of today’s institutions of higher learning. Parents, taxpayers, and donors who ignore or are too lazy to find out what goes on in the name of higher education are nearly as complicit as the professors and administrators who promote or sanction the lunacy, evil, and lawlessness. As for the term “institutions of higher learning,” we might start asking: Higher than what?

Let’s look at a tiny sample of academic lunacy.

During a campus debate, Purdue University professor David Sanders argued that a logical extension of pro-lifers’ belief that fetuses are human beings is that pictures of “a butt-naked body of a child” are child pornography.

Clemson University’s chief diversity officer, Lee Gill, who’s paid $185,000 a year to promote inclusion, provided a lesson claiming that to expect certain people to be on time is racist.
To reduce angst among snowflakes in its student body, the University of California, Hastings College of the Law has added a “Chill Zone.” The Chill Zone, located in its library, has, just as most nursery schools have, mats for naps and beanbag chairs.

Before or after a snooze, students can also use the space to do a bit of yoga or meditate.
The University of Michigan Law School helped its students weather their Trump derangement syndrome—a condition resulting from Donald Trump’s election—by enlisting the services of an “embedded psychologist” in a room full of bubbles and play dough.

To reduce pressure on law students, Joshua M. Silverstein, a law professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, thinks “every American law school ought to substantially eliminate C grades and set its good academic standing grade point average at the B- level.”

Today’s academic climate might be described as a mixture of infantilism, kindergarten, and totalitarianism. The radicals, draft dodgers, and hippies of the 1960s who are now college administrators and professors are responsible for today’s academic climate. The infantilism should not be tolerated, but more important for the future of our nation are the totalitarianism and the “hate America” lessons being taught at many of the nation’s colleges.

For example, led by its student government leader, the University of California, Irvine’s student body voted for a motion, which the faculty approved, directing that the American flag not be on display because it makes some students uncomfortable and creates an unsafe, hostile environment.

The flag is a symbol of hate speech, according to the student government leader. He said the U.S. flag is just as offensive as Nazi and Islamic State flags and that the U.S. is the world’s most evil nation.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, New York University Provost Ulrich Baer argued:
The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community.
That’s a vision that is increasingly being adopted on college campuses, and it’s leaking down to our primary and secondary levels of education. Baer apparently believes that the test for one’s commitment to free speech comes when he balances his views with those of others.

His vision justifies the violent disruptions of speeches by Heather Mac Donald at Claremont McKenna College, Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley, and Charles Murray at Middlebury College. Baer’s vision is totalitarian nonsense. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when he permits people to be free to say and write those things he finds deeply offensive.

Americans who see themselves as either liberal or conservative should rise up against this totalitarian trend on America’s college campuses.  I believe the most effective way to do so is to hit these campus tyrants where it hurts the most—in the pocketbook. Lawmakers should slash budgets, and donors should keep their money in their pockets.