Democrats are desperate. The "Better Deal" slogan is ludicrous!
Socialism has never worked. And yet democrats are fully committed.
Yikes. The new focus advertising now by democrats to take the initiative to set a standard for the next election is they have a ''better deal'' for America then the Republicans?
Goodness, these people just have no shame. Is this like the better deal brought to us by Barak, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi over the last 8 years?
But wait, the progressive democrats have a history of being short on ideas that benefit the people, but long on how to take advantage of them.
A better deal? Socialism is a 'better deal' then the individual freedom to chose?
Their sole purpose of a socialist collective is to find ways to limit what the people need to prosper, as when the people prosper they become more independent, thinking as individuals. Therefore, as a result, the democrats are voted out of office.
Success and prosperity is a disaster for the progressive socialist liberal democrats as the find themselves on the outside looking in as they are doing now.
Little wonder there is such hate for the Republicans in congress and the main stream media. The people are beginning to see what prosperity looks like and they are enjoying their success.
Republicans are weak and uncommitted to save the country from OgbjmaCare?
OgbjmaCare is a disaster but Republican are okay with that? It just seems the required intelligence and principles needed to make a situation better escapes them.
Or is it worse then that? Is it they really aren't who the say the are?
We know who the progressive socialist liberals are, they show us and tell us who they are every day. Our country is in decline and worse.
But the Republicans go before the cameras extolling their commitment to God, family and the nation, but when it comes time to actually make good on those pronouncements of their basic principles, they head for the exits.
To be fair, not all Republicans are spineless hand wringers, still there are enough of them to make a bad situation worse by letting down all those that voted for them to actually do what they said they would do if elected.
It boils down to 'stand and deliver' on promises made to their voter base. But Republicans, it seems, just find it easier once they arrive in Washington become bewildered, power struck if you will, unable to shake the need to remain in power much like their colleagues in the progressive democrat collective.
The mistake the Republicans are making by sitting on their 'collective' hands is the voters won't tolerate such action as they have in the past. The democrats can usually escape voter anger as most democrat voters are asleep at the wheel, good soldiers standing ready to the bidding of their betters. w Republican voters have become insurgent and awakened to the perils that face our nation, thanks in large part to the catastrophic last past 8 years of democrats and Barak driving our country into ruin.
And lets not forget the progressive ultra left media that has emerged now from behind the curtain as a willing participant in the ''transformation'' of the country as promised by Barack's jihad and the socialists.
I believe there is a new day dawning in Washington were politicians are being held to account and the consequences for inaction and commitment are unacceptable. And when the voters are angered enough, on election day, the voters will show who is actually in charge.
Sadly though, it's not just the weak politician that will suffer, our country will suffer as well leaving the country to slide back into the hands those that seek only the power to control.
Some times a situation can only be handled by a professional that understands what needs to be done. Enjoy the day. Maria had just gotten married, and being a traditional Italian she was still a virgin. On her wedding night, staying at her mother's house, she was very nervous. Her mother reassured her; 'Don't worry, Maria, Tony's a good man. Go upstairs and he'll take care of you. Meanwhile, I'll be making pasta.'
So, up she went. When she got upstairs, Tony took off his shirt and exposed his hairy chest. Maria ran downstairs to her mother and says, 'Mama, Mama, Tony's got a big hairy chest.' 'Don't worry, Maria,' says the mother, 'all good men have hairy chests.. Go upstairs. He'll take good care of you.'
So, up she went again.. When she got up in the bedroom, Tony took off his pants exposing his hairy legs. Again, Maria ran downstairs to her mother. 'Mama, Mama, Tony took off his pants and he's got hairy legs!' 'Don't worry! All good men have hairy legs. Tony's a good man. Go upstairs and he'll take good care of you.'
So, up she went again. When she got there, Tony took off his socks and on his left foot he was missing three toes. When Maria saw this, she ran downstairs. 'Mama, Mama, Tony's got a foot and a half!'
Stupid white people or just progressive socialist liberal democrats? Is this our future? Can this really be how some people think, and are so easily persuaded to believe they are the problem in the world just because of the color of their skin?
Have we fallen this far or is it just a demonstration of a pervasive mental weakness that infests a certain kind of person who cannot contend with realty, a certain kind of commons sense that escapes them and is replaced with a conscience willingness to be subservient?
Again and again, it being demonstrated in the halls of congress, the main stream media, most universities and colleges for all to see, it's the progressive liberal 'new world order' where what you think you know as fact is not necessary true, unless those at the levers of power give their blessing for you to speak or even exist as an individual. Welcome to the world of progressive socialism. We Must Protect Free Speech on College Campuses Rep. Jim Jordan / @Jim_Jordan /
“The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.” This quote, taken from the 1974 Woodward Report at Yale, summarizes the policy that was, for years, the gold standard of what free speech on campus should look like.
But conservatives, and many liberals, too, recognize that many colleges and universities in our great country have reversed course and are now using their power to suppress free speech on campus.
You need look no further than the recent violent protests at the University of California, Berkeley over Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro to know that conservative guest speakers have increasingly been disinvited, shouted down, and denied the right to speak.
But everyday students are being silenced as well. What sometimes starts with “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” evolves into Oregon University establishing a “bias response team” where students are encouraged to report anything that makes them uncomfortable, in order that the university may start an investigation and attempt to “eliminate” the controversial topic.
Orwellian.
We saw the dampening effect the IRS targeting of conservatives had on the free speech rights of individuals and groups opposed to Obamacare. Now, we are set to investigate a similar effect on groups and individuals who are being forced into self-censorship out of fear of retaliation from activist students, faculty, and administrators on campuses across the country.
Please tune into the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on Thursday, which will feature several individuals who have had their First Amendment rights targeted. I look forward to hearing about their experiences and looking for solutions to protect the Constitution.
Why is it that when progressive liberals are on he receiving end of a negative court decision they hollow about corruption by Republicans as in the Chevron case and now with Debbie ''Blabbermouth'' Schultz being investigated for collaborating with foreign agents to scam congressional members and the general public our of $millions of tax dollars, and then lying about it. I wonder if this is like ''Watergate''? In reality it's much, much worse then Watergate as with ''Blabbermouth'' Schultz knowingly and willingly having potential dealings with domestic and foreign scam artists and or terrorists. With Debbie 'Blabbermouth' Schultz, an ultra-left progressive liberal democrat, she has placed our national security is a risk. But who cares, right? She's a progressive socialist liberal democrat. Isn't she the one that ''collude with Hillary to steal the nomination for president from 'Wildman' Bernie? That didn't happen with Nixon. Nixon was attacked for months until he resigned. Little wonder then why the liberal left media is silent on charging a democrat with knowingly colluding with potential foreign terrorists.
House IT Aide’s Lawyer Is Longtime Clinton Associate Mark Tapscott /
Chris Gowen, Imran Awan’s lawyer, is a longtime campaigner for former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a member of an attorney team that brought a fraudulent lawsuit against energy giant Chevron Corp.
Pakistani-born Imran was arrested late Monday at Dulles Airport in Northern Virginia before he could board a flight to Qatar and then Pakistan on bank fraud charges. Imran; his younger brothers, Abid and Jamal; his wife, Hina Alvi; and Rao Abbas, his best friend, have been subjects of a federal criminal investigation led by the U.S. Capitol Police and including the FBI since February 2017.
The investigation is focused on allegations the Awan group abused their access as congressional information technology administrators for dozens of Democratic members of the House of Representatives, including the former Democratic National Committee chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida.
Gowen described Imran’s arrest as “clearly a right-wing media-driven prosecution by a United States Attorney’s Office that wants to prosecute people for working while Muslim.” Gowen is a founding partner of Gowen Rhoades Winograd & Silva law firm, with offices in Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia.
His official bio on the firm’s website notes that he “left the Public Defender’s office to work for former President William Jefferson Clinton and then-Senator Hillary Clinton. Chris was a fact checker for President Clinton’s memoir, ‘My Life.’” “He also served as a traveling aid for President Clinton’s national and international trips. Chris finished his tenure with the Clintons by directing the advance operations for then-Senator Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign.”
Conservative Review, which first reported Gowen’s extensive Clinton connections Wednesday, said they also include work for the Clinton Foundation and its Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Health Access Initiative. Also noted on Gowen’s bio is his work in a class-action lawsuit against Chevron, a long-running litigation that culminated in a June 19 denial by the U.S. Supreme Court of an appeal by the lead attorney for a group of Ecuadorian citizens, Steven Donziger.
The Ecuadorians claimed damages caused by waste disposal practices by Texaco, which Chevron took over in 2000 in a $100 billion merger. Chevron refused to pay $9.5 billion in damages against Texaco in an Ecuadorian court. Donziger’s team sought to force Chevron to pay by taking the litigation to the U.S. court system.
But Donziger was convicted in 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with money laundering, wire fraud, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice.
A federal appeals court upheld the convictions and the case was remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit following the Supreme Court’s denial, which upheld the decision.
Gowen’s bio noted that “his efforts on behalf of the lawyers who represented thousands of indigent villagers in Ecuador received national and international notoriety.”
Gowen told The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group Wednesday that he is no longer involved in the Ecuador case. He said he left the team “when my client hired appellate counsel—I still assisted the appellate counsel when they had questions.”
Had the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, Gowen said, “my firm would have certainly been involved to what ever level my client wished. We still find that case to be the greatest abuse of the civil justice system in our country’s history by Chevron and its team of lawyers.” 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.
Does it really matter what the truth is or is it just enough for it to be the seriousness of the charge to carry the day? Everyone on this planet knows the Clintons, but sadly many do not know who they really are or worse, care.
The Clintons are national and international criminals of the highest order which have the power bring lady justice to her knees and then kicked in the face.
The only thing that really matters it seems, is what is the highlighted subject on their small world held in the hand. Any further then that requires an active initiative to mentally grow and prosper. It just doesn't make much sense to think critically when being lead in other directions by others that seem so much smarter then yourself.
The main stream media and the progressive socialist liberals decide what is important and what isn't. It's just seems easier for many to 'go along to get along' then struggle with questions that don't make sense in a real world. But then how many among us live in a real world?
Given what is transpiring across the globe, is America the only place left where the lights are still on but the people here unaware of how that happens?
People take about justice. Where is the justice?
The Clintons are serious criminals of the worst kind, much like Bonnie and Clyde.
Who knew? This all makes such good sense. Really, it's just commons sense and solid logic in the face of total unhinged and vacuous demands from progressive socialist liberals that see forcing the military to give up purchasing air craft and ammunition to provide transgender surgery and life long medical care to bring, the progressives believe, the American military into the twenty first century. Barack, on so many occasion here and around the world, stated he believed America was the source of world conflict, and therefore he believed by reducing the military's effectives by disrupting history long cohesiveness, America be more in line with other nations that are struggling to enslave their populations without interference from American do-gooders.
Again, insanity proves to be an overpowering capitulating neurotic failings of progressive democrats that overwhelms good sense and intellectual discourse concerning and understanding what reality is and how it works to solve problems. But never mind debauchery, it's the agenda and ideology of progressive democrats.
5 Good Reasons Why Transgender Accommodations Aren’t Compatible With Military Realities Ryan T. Anderson / @RyanTAnd /
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump announced that he was reversing an Obama-era policy that opened the military to people who identify as transgender. That policy, announced during the last year of President Barack Obama’s second term, was scheduled to go into effect earlier this month, but Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced a six-month delay in its implementation to review whether it was in fact prudent given the nature of the military and its mission.
The mission of our armed forces is winning wars and protecting the nation. So any personnel policy must prioritize military readiness and mission-critical purposes first. Trump’s announcement that it would not be feasible to open the military to personnel who identify as transgender returns the military to the policy it had always observed, before the Obama administration’s 12th-hour, politically driven imposition of a transgender agenda.
The most helpful therapies for gender dysphoria focus not on achieving the impossible—changing bodies to conform to thoughts and feelings—but on helping people accept and even embrace the truth about their bodies and reality. Unfortunately, 41 percent of people who identify as transgender will attempt suicide at some point in their lives, compared to 4.6 percent of the general population. And people who have had transition surgery are 19 times more likely than average to die by suicide.
People who identify as transgender suffer a host of mental health and social problems—including anxiety, depression, and substance abuse—at higher rates than the general population. Biology isn’t bigotry, and we need a sober and honest assessment of the human costs of getting human nature wrong.
So there were well-justified concerns that Obama was using the military to advance the latest social justice culture warrior agenda item—seeking to mainstream transgender identities and promote controversial therapies for gender dysphoria. Obama’s policy change ignored the reality that placing individuals who might be at increased risk for suicide or other psychological injury in the most stressful situation imaginable—the battlefield—is reckless.
But even people who disagree about the underlying transgender issues should acknowledge that there are practical concerns for the military when it comes to people who identify as transgender.
Wednesday’s announcement reflects good reasons why transgender accommodations are incompatible with military realities. Here are just a few of the considerations:
1. That the privacy of service members must not be infringed.
This means that no soldiers, including those who identify as transgender, should be allowed to use the sex-specific facility of the opposite sex. When it comes to barracks, bathroom, showers, etc., the privacy of all service members must be respected. Given the nature of military living quarters, it is unclear where soldiers who identify as transgender could be housed.
2. That all service members remain combat-ready at all times.
But soldiers who have “transitioned” medically require regular hormone treatments and follow-up visits after sex-reassignment surgery. It is unclear how someone who has “transitioned” would be deployable.
3. That all service members be held to the same physical fitness standards, and that these standards by based on the reality of biological sex, not the subjective “gender identity.”
Men who identify as women should not be held to a lower standard than other men—they should be held to the standard for someone with their body that the military has determined is most effective for combat.
4. That scarce taxpayer monies not be expended on costly and controversial sex-reassignment therapies.
This is particularly the case as growing foreign threats are stretching our military’s resources, and as we struggle as a nation to provide basic health care to all. But it is unclear how soldiers who identify as transgender would pay for their treatments apart from including coverage in Tricare, the military health care program.
5. That the medical judgment, conscience rights, and religious liberty of military doctors, chaplains, commanding officers, and fellow service members be respected.
Unless and until military leaders are able to find a way to respect all of these provisions, there will remain good reasons why the military will be unable to accommodate people who identify as transgender.
And who started this nightmare, dah! Barack Ogbjma and his fellow travelers in the progressive socialist liberal collective. The progressives believe our military is a source of fear for those around the world who, according to Barack, wish only to become independent and free, but Barack told them he would help to alleviate their fears by reducing the aggressive overpowering tilt of the military that wants to destroy other nations, especially nation like Iran.
Our bloodthirsty military can be reduced to babbling children, Barak believes, by forcing them to care for others that can't care for themselves. Luckily Trump has other ideas on the subject.
I Was Once Transgender. Why I Think Trump Made the Right Decision for the Military. Walt Heyer /
I think he made the right decision—and as someone who lived as trans-female for several years, I should know. When I discovered Congress voted earlier this month to not block funding for transgender-related hormone therapies and sex change surgeries, I wondered if it considered how devastating this will be to the fitness, readiness, and morale of our combat-ready troops.
In July, the House of Representatives voted down Missouri Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which would have banned the military from funding such treatments. Paying for transition-related surgeries for military service members and their families is beyond comprehensible.
Gender dysphoria, the common diagnosis for one who feels at odds with his or her birth gender, develops from prolonged anxiety and depression. People are not born that way. The “proof” for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is having strongly held feelings—but feelings can and often do change over time.
The military is expected to prepare its members in warfare: to kill, destroy, and break our enemies. The most important factors in preparing a strong military are not hormone therapy, surgical sex changes, or politically correct education. We need psychologically fit, emotionally sound, highly trained troops to protect our nation from its enemies.
While countless homeless vets are currently sleeping under cardboard boxes, or waiting for life-saving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs, we learn that transgender military recruits now qualify for preferential coverage for sex change procedures that are scientifically unproven and extremely costly. I myself was fully sex-reassigned from male to female, and eventually came to accept my birth gender.
I have over 70 years of firsthand life experience, eight years of living as a woman, 20 years of researching the topic, and 12 years of helping others who, like me, found that transitioning and reassignment surgery failed to be proper treatment and want to restore their lives to their birth gender. Costly, but Not Effective
Transitioning can be expensive—up to $130,000 per person for numerous body-mutilating and cosmetic procedures over many months (or years) to fashion the body to appear as the opposite sex.
Yet, no matter how skilled the surgeon, or how much money is spent, it is biologically impossible to change a man into a woman or a woman into a man. The change is only cosmetic. The medical community continues to recommend this radical “treatment” in the absence of scientific evidence that people are better off in the long run. This population attempts suicide at a rate of 40 percent.
Even after the full surgical change, they attempt to end their lives, or tragically succeed.
Over 60 percent of this diverse population suffer from co-existing mental disorders. Consider Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning), a former Army soldier who was so psychologically and emotionally unbalanced that he stole confidential documents from the military and forwarded them to WikiLeaks. The Military Is a Fighting Force, Not a Gender Clinic
The military should not provide sex change surgery. Through my website, sexchangeregret.com, I hear from people who experienced firsthand how damaging and unnecessary reassignment surgeries were. For them, the sex change failed to resolve the emotional and psychological disorders that drove the desire to change gender. Many write after living the transgender life for years. They write to ask for advice on how to reverse the original surgical change and restore their lives to the original birth gender like I did, a process called detransition.
Some service members will come to regret having undergone the surgery and will want to detransition. Where will the military be then? Will the military pay for the sex change reversal procedure, too?
Failed “sex change surgeries” are not uncommon and will drive up the cost to care for the military transgender population above the projected $3-4 billion 10-year cost. Beyond the financial cost, there’s the question of the service member’s military readiness during their transition or detransition, as the process often comes with a great deal of anxiety and emotional instability. Commentary: 5 Good Reasons Transgender Accommodations Aren’t Compatible With Military Realities
I know of many who have struggled to adapt to the new gender role for years after reassignment surgery. In my view, as a former trans-female who works every day with regretters, allowing the military to pay for sex change surgeries will make a mockery of the U.S. military. Advocates are relentless in their pursuit of making others, via the government and insurance companies, cover the cost of sex change procedures. If the military had been forced to pay, the advocates would have used this as leverage to press every other entity—both government and commercial—to pay for sex change surgeries as well.
As a person who lived the transgender life for eight years, I can attest that assisting, affirming, or paying for hormone therapies and genital mutilation surgeries would not have strengthened our military. They would only have brought adverse long-term consequences, both for individuals and for our armed forces as a whole.
This is a very good summation of why we must continue to be in Afghanistan. And why we need the Trump administration to lead the fight to kill the terrorists that base there and everywhere else that are hiding out. We cannot run from this fight as we did in Iraq. As the author reports, the fight is generational to secure the world from terror and to believe we can just turn away is delusional and a real national security risk if we follow the path we did in Iraq. The entire problem of terrorist flooding nearly the entire world can be boiled down to one single factor, and that's the lack of leadership that understands the problem. A leadership failure by Barack or a plan for chaos and conflict. Barack's decision to surrender Iraq to the terrorists was the beginning of ISIS deaths of more then a million lives, and the destruction of much of Iraq and Syria's infrastructure, let alone the flood of millions of refugees, along with ISIS terrorists into Europe and North America. I believe Barack's surrender of Iraq was by design. Barack's connection, capitulation to the Iranian leadership is clear and began when he refused to aid the 'million man march' in Iran for freedom. What other reason could he have to allow such a huge sign of the people rising up against the Muslim Mullahs then he agreed with the tortured Iranian leadership. Was it his kinship with the Iranian Persians? Ever wonder why Barack went all out to get the nuclear deal with Iran done? The over all result to date is Iran is headed to control the middle east, especially when they go nuclear in the next several years. And when Iran begins the battle for Syria once ISIS is defeated there, they will be unstoppable. And just like Barack made sure they would dominate the region.The lose of blood, treasure and destruction in the middle east can be laid at the feet of Barack and his followers. Why We Can’t Leave Afghanistan Now Genevieve Wood /@genevievewood/
The mission in Afghanistan has entered one of its most crucial periods. Now is not the time to pull back. The United States and its allies must finish the job. The U.S. has been involved in combat operations in Afghanistan for almost 16 years. To put that in perspective, consider that an 18-year-old soldier serving in Afghanistan today was only 2 years old on 9/11.
Yes, we have been there a long time. And as the Trump administration considers the way forward, it’s important to remember the goal of our mission. Unfortunately, too many political and military leaders over the years have wrongly defined success in Afghanistan, leading many Americans to question why we’re still there.
Lofty “nation-building” goals—ensuring every road is paved, every girl goes to school, and everyone gets the right to vote—while all good things to aspire to, are not the reasons why we went to Afghanistan. And they are not the reasons why we should remain.
This is a deadly region. Twenty of the 98 U.S.-designated terrorist organizations have bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan, making it the highest concentration of terrorist groups anywhere in the world.
The No. 1 priority of our leaders when it comes to defining our national security policies is to keep the U.S. and our allies safe.
Watch the video : https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/videos/891019101064043/
Here’s the reality: The Afghan military is far from perfect, but perfection is not the goal. The goal in Afghanistan is to get their forces to a level where they can handle the insurgency themselves, without tens of thousands of Western troops on the ground. That is why America’s mission in Afghanistan should be focused on training and funding the Afghan military so that it will eventually be able to stop interference from outside powers and it will be able to prevent the establishment of terror bases that were there before.
That should be our goal. Nothing more, nothing less.
Losing our focus and losing our resolve could mean disastrous consequences down the road.
We need look no further than what happened in Iraq when the Obama administration deemed the war over and prematurely pulled out our troops there. Iraq is a case study in how to get it wrong. The abrupt U.S. troop withdrawal in 2011 deprived the Iraqi government of important counterterrorism, intelligence, and training capabilities that were needed to keep the pressure on al-Qaeda, which then morphed into ISIS. This allowed it to regain strength in a much more permissive environment.
As the rise of ISIS and Iran’s new-found meddling in the region have shown, a war isn’t over simply because we want it to be or because a U.S. president says so.
We should not make the same mistake in Afghanistan.
This is a generational fight that is going to require a generation of commitment.
There are a lot of questions that need to answered concerning the Clintons and how they operated for decades. But in reality I believe the Republicans don't have the stomach to do the heavy lifting that it will take to get the job done.
It's just who the Republicans are. Placing them in charge of anything is a waste of time. Where they are most comfortable is being told what to do and how to do it. Little wonder the democrats always find a way to having the Republicans do their bidding. 4 House Republicans Seek Answers on FBI Probe of Clinton Emails Fred Lucas /@FredLucasWH/
As President Donald Trump calls for the Justice Department to probe the actions of his vanquished opponent, Hillary Clinton, four Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee want another look at the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton email scandal. The four Republican lawmakers—Florida’s Matt Gaetz, Arizona’s Andy Biggs, Ohio’s Jim Jordan, and Louisiana’s Mike Johnson—filed an amendment Wednesday directing an investigation into how then-FBI Director James Comey’s managed the case.
The lawmakers’ interest comes after Comey, ousted May 9 by Trump, told a Senate panel in June that, during the Obama administration, Attorney General Loretta Lynch had directed Comey to call the FBI’s probe of Clinton’s private email server a “matter” instead of an “investigation.” Comey also told the Senate Judiciary Committee in May that Lynch’s meeting with Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, on an airport tarmac caused him to lack confidence the Justice Department could credibly conclude the investigation.
Lynch told Comey “to mislead the American people about the Clinton email investigation,” Jordan said in a prepared statement, adding:
James Comey testified to this fact under oath. Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-Calif.] said this should be investigated. I’m supporting the efforts of my colleague Congressman Matt Gaetz to have a special counsel investigate this important issue.
Gaetz initiated the proposal to investigate what the FBI did, noting the “baseless accusations” against Trump and the delay of presidential appointees. “These smoke-and-mirrors efforts do little to serve the nation’s interests, and provide a convenient distraction from the many concerning, suspicious, and potentially illegal actions involving the FBI and the previous administration,” Gaetz said in a statement. “That inaction ends today,” Gaetz added, “because today, my colleagues and I started going after the real criminals. May justice be served.”
The investigation into Clinton’s private email server ended when Comey held a July 5, 2016, press conference in which he called Clinton reckless in her use of a private email account and server to conduct official business as secretary of state but said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against her.
Democrats officially nominated Clinton as their presidential candidate three weeks later, on July 26.
During the campaign, candidate Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton email scandal. But after winning, he said: “I don’t want to hurt the Clintons.”
However, this week, the president denounced Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Twitter, and wondered why he hasn’t directed an investigation into Clinton regarding her interactions with Russia and Ukraine.
Americans also need to know more about what the Obama administration did in Clinton-related probes, Johnson said. “There is little question that members of Obama’s administration repeatedly broke protocol throughout their investigations into Hillary Clinton,” the Louisiana Republican said. “What is unclear, however, is why we have received few answers over the past 12 months to our questions about their actions, especially concerning the former attorney general and FBI director.”
Biggs said Americans want answers.
“My colleagues and I introduced this amendment because we are tired of passively allowing the left and the radical media to distract from the Republican agenda through wild accusations,” Biggs said, adding:
Most of the claims made about President Trump and his team are nothing more than unfounded, unsourced, anonymous allegations that merely serve the purpose of trying to delegitimize the president and prevent Congress from carrying out the agenda we promised to the American people. It is time for the left to respond to the blatant misconduct of Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, James Comey, Susan Rice, and Loretta Lynch.
Holder was Obama’s first attorney general. Rice served as ambassador to the United Nations and later as national security adviser.
Remember back in 2008, the progressive socialist liberal democrats label John McCain a ''Maverick'' before he was nominated to run for president, and then once he was nominated he became a dullard and delusional. Sadly nothing has changed for John.
After he went on the floor of the Senate to give such an impassioned speech just before the vote was taken, demanded he and the other senators do their duty and vote for this first step in the Repeal and Replacement of OgbjmaCare, and not listen to those voices on television and radio that insist on rational thought like Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity, Fox News, then when the chips are on the table and it's time to show your hand, McCain plays his best cards to defeat the bill. Who knew? Why did John McCain vote against this bill? Will the real John McCain please stand up. Who exactly is John McCain and where does he come from? Most of us that took an interest knew who John was back in 2004 when he gave a speech during the Republican convection that told everyone that was listening he isn't who he makes himself out to be. He didn't like George Bush and probably didn't vote for him. John McCain is not one of us and never has been. Now we have a better insight into the thinking of John McCain and it's a sad reality. 3 Republicans Join Democrats to Defeat Obamacare Repeal Fred Lucas /@FredLucasWH/ Republican Sens. John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins joined Democrats to keep Obamacare, at least for now. The “skinny repeal” bill only managed to get 49 votes, with every Democrat and the three Republicans voting against the scaled-down version of the repeal and replace bill. Just before 2 a.m., Senate Majority Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., noted that for seven years, Republicans have promised to repeal and replace Obamacare. “We told our constituents we would vote that way and when the moment came, most of us did,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “Our friends on the other side decided early on they didn’t want to engage with us in a serious way to help those suffering under Obamacare.”
“I’m proud of the vote I cast tonight, consistent with what we told the American people we’ve been trying to accomplish in four straight elections if they gave us a chance.” McCain was a mystery up until the end. “From the beginning, I have believed that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced with a solution that increases competition, lowers costs, and improves care for the American people,” the Arizona senator said in a statement after the vote. “The so-called ‘skinny repeal’ amendment the Senate voted on today would not accomplish those goals.” “While the amendment would have repealed some of Obamacare’s most burdensome regulations, it offered no replacement to actually reform our health care system and deliver affordable, quality health care to our citizens.” Collins, of Maine, and Murkowski, of Alaska, were expected to vote no, as both voted this week against even allowing debate on the matter. Murkowski voted in 2015 to repeal Obamacare when President Barack Obama was sure to veto the bill. The “skinny repeal” would have eliminated or scaled back the most unpopular elements of Obamacare, such as the individual and employer mandates, and the medical device tax. It also would have defunded Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. President Donald Trump tweeted at 2:25 a.m. Friday that it’s time to just let Obamacare collapse, a sentiment he’s made in the past before recommitting to a repeal bill in Congress The main purpose of the “skinny repeal,” called the Health Care Freedom Act, was to keep the House-passed replacement legislation alive in order to get a conference committee to shape a final bill. Vice President Mike Pence, who is the president of the Senate, arrived after 11:30 to cast a tie-breaking vote if necessary. Had McCain voted with his fellow Republicans, he would have been the 50th vote, and Pence would have cast the 51st vote. The Republican-controlled Senate should still try to act to keep their promise, said Michael Needham, CEO of Heritage Action for America. “Long before tonight, the Senate demonstrated a complete and utter inability to govern. Repealing and, ultimately, replacing Obamacare will require moderate Republicans to come to the table and follow through on their repeated campaign promises,” Needham said in a statement. He continued:
At this very moment, Americans are stuck with a failing health care law. Networks continue to narrow. Premiums continue to rise. And choice continues to decline. Obamacare is becoming a zombie law, and throwing more taxpayer money at Zombiecare is unacceptable. The only way to force Senators back to the table is to block efforts to prop up Obamacare. After seven years of promises, Republicans cannot simply retreat to embracing the status quo.
Here’s a breakdown of what happened during the long night in the Senate. 1.) What the Skinny Bill Would Have Done The Health Care Freedom Act was released after 10 p.m. If passed, the bill would have: permanently eliminated the individual mandate to buy insurance and eliminated for eight years the mandate on employers to provide insurance; increased state flexibility to experiment with health reforms; provided a three-year extension for increasing what individuals can invest in health savings accounts, or HSAs; redirected Planned Parenthood money to community health care providers for one year; and eliminated the 2.3 percent tax on medical devices such as pacemakers for two years. 2.) McCain’s Revolt It was a dramatic late afternoon before debate began when Republican Sens. McCain, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin stated they wouldn’t support the bill without a guarantee the bill would go to conference committee. This came after reports the House would immediately pass the “skinny repeal,” and send to President Donald Trump, rather than use it as a step for further negotiation. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., first gave a non-committal response, saying only: “Senators have made clear that this is an effort to keep the process alive, not to make law. If moving forward requires a conference committee, that is something the House is willing to do.” Ryan later reportedly told Graham the bill would definitely go to conference committee. Graham and Johnson voted for the “skinny bill.” McCain earlier said he didn’t want to rush a partisan bill through the same way the Democratic Congress did in 2010. After the vote, he said he wasn’t assured by Ryan. “The speaker’s statement that the House would be ‘willing’ to go to conference does not ease my concern that this shell of a bill could be taken up and passed at any time,” McCain said in his statement. “I’ve stated time and time again that one of the major failures of Obamacare was that it was rammed through Congress by Democrats on a strict-party line basis without a single Republican vote. We should not make the mistakes of the past that has led to Obamacare’s collapse.”
3.) Schumer’s Contrition on Obamacare Interestingly, McCain voted against a Democratic measure on the floor after midnight to send the bill to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for review, an amendment sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. The motion failed 52-48 despite impassioned Democratic pleas. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., sounded contrite about the partisan 2010 Obamacare process in a speech trying to peel off Republican support for sending the proposal back to committee. Schumer said:
There’s a lot of anger on the other side at the ACA. I understand that, but you’re repeating what you claim are the same mistakes. And just as maybe Obamacare could have been made better were it a bipartisan proposal, this one certainly would have been made better. I would plead once more with my colleagues, let’s start over. We are the first to admit that the present law needs some changes. We are the first to want—maybe having learned our own lesson—that it should be done in a bipartisan and sharing way.
4.) Eliminating the Cadillac Tax There was one area where Republicans were successful in rolling back a provision of Obamacare. Before the Health Care Freedom Act came to the floor, Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., proposed an amendment to permanently repeal the “Cadillac tax.” That was a provision of Obamacare that imposed a 40 percent excise tax on insurance plans with annual premiums higher than $29,500 for families. Schumer made a motion to commit the measure to the Senate Finance Committee, which failed by a vote of 43-57. The Heller amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 52-48. 5.) Democrats Refuse to Vote Against Single-Payer System Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., introduced an amendment early on for a single-payer health care system as a means of putting Democrats on the record. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has proposed a similar measure, was among the 43 senators to vote present. Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Jon Tester of Montana, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota voted no with all Republicans. The measure failed 0-57. McConnell spoke shortly before 2 a.m. after the “skinny repeal” failed about the single-payer system vote. “Almost everybody voted present. Apparently they didn’t want to make a decision about whether they were for or against socialized medicine, a government takeover of everything, European health care,” McConnell said. “Only four of them weren’t afraid to say that wasn’t a good idea.”
And then there's this to lighten your day, another confessional story - Enjoy. (A warning that this one is a little off color but still a 'smiler')
Having just read the 'which confessional door' story a while back, it reminded me of the time Father O’Malley was too hung over to accept confessions so he asked the janitor to fill in for him.
The janitor was reluctant to do so, saying, “I fear I wouldn’t know the proper penance to require for all the sins I might hear confessed to.”O’Malley said, “Fear not my son.Johnny, the alter boy, is very well versed in such things and I’ll have him on hand to advise you if necessary.”The janitor reluctantly agreed to stand in.
Confession went well for the janitor until a young woman entered the confessional and said, “Bless me father for I have sinned.Last night I went down on my boyfriend.” The janitor turned to Johnny in a whisper asked, “What does Father O’Malley give for a blow job?Johnny replied, “Five dollars and a Snickers Bar.”
Just how beautiful just a few words of wisdom and truth can be to start the day. This little ditty brings home a refreshing point of view that lurks mostly in 'flyover country' where common sense and logic are every day occurrences, not a scares commodity as it seems to be on the east and west coasts of our great country.
Oh, and little wonder it was all of us that lurk and labor in the trenches of reality that elected Donald Trump, kicking the progressive ''wonder woman'' Hillary Clinton to the curb. Do the progressive socialist liberal democrats hate us, you bet, but then as a class of free individuals that understand life and living ,we wear the democrats badge of hate for us with pride.
Knowing who and what we are is essential for survival and prosperity in this 'new norm mentality' of misinformation and misdirection to change America. Democrats believe bringing daily designed chaos and conflict situations around the country as an agenda, they can 'transform' our way of life and destroy 240 years of our history of individuals having the freedom and liberty to chose.
It hasn't worked! Enjoy the ride.
Keep On Truckin'
After spending a considerable about of money each month on repairs for my ride, I decided I would stopped by my local Ford Dealership this morning to look for a new truck.
While I was walking around the sales lot I saw a nice F-350 Crew Cab loaded with all the options that I like. The truck was exactly what I had in mind when I thought about buying a new truck so and asked to take it for a test drive
A few minutes later the salesperson (a lady wearing a ‘Hillary for President’ lapel pin) came out from the office with the keys, flipped them to me and I opened the doors.
She sat in the passenger seat next to me, and began describing the truck and all its options.
She told me about the automatic starter for those cold winter nights and hot summer days, she told me about the automatic wipers, the fog lamps, the UBS ports, the running boards, the clear coat.
Finally she explained that the electric seats were connected to the ventilation system and could be set to direct cool air to your butt in the summer and warm air to your butt in the winter.
So I mentioned that this must be a ‘Trump Truck.’ She looked at me a bit angry, and asked why I thought it was a ‘Trump Truck.’ I told her that if it were a Hillary Truck, the seats would just blow smoke up your ass all year ’round!
The two mile walk back to the dealership to pick up my truck was well worth it
The very basic problem here with getting our economic house in order is, and as nearly all of our other problems in our country, is the infestation of progressive socialist liberal democrats in all aspects of our lives and our government. This is nothing new but just over the last decade it has become obvious to anyone that pays attention to what is going on in the financial markets, the progressives have driven the economy into a regulatory dumpster, and by design. Making the cost to do business so difficult and expensive for innovation or just doing business on a dally basis that the only way forward is to seek, beg for special privileges from the power brokers at the levers in Washington, and thereby forced to become whores for the progressives, voting like they are told and sending money back to the Washington to maintain those exemptions. The Republican Financial Choice Act will change how banks do business and how the general public will benefit from a free market system, and eliminate the corruption of the progressive Dodd/Frank nightmare. Dodd-Frank Has Held Down the US Economy for Too Long Rep. Jeb Hensarling / @RepHensarling /
Carefree, Arizona—population 3,363—is 2,400 miles from Wall Street. But that’s still not far enough away to escape the harm caused by Democrats’ supposed “Wall Street reform” known as the Dodd-Frank Act, which was signed into law seven years ago this month.
According to a local news report, a proposed housing project in Carefree was terminated because “the Dodd-Frank Act and its overreaching federal regulations” prevented the developer from obtaining financing.
In truth, citizens of every American community are losing economic opportunities due to Dodd-Frank. According to the Mercatus Center, Dodd-Frank places greater burdens on our business enterprises than all other Obama-era regulations combined. Arguably, it is the prime contributor to our economy’s halting growth since the last recession ended. It has been particularly harmful to small businesses.
Even the former director of President Barack Obama’s Small Business Administration lamented that Dodd-Frank’s regulatory burdens on community banks “are getting in the way of their ability to make small business loans.” Thanks to Dodd-Frank, too many garages are full of old cars instead of new startup companies. Dodd-Frank harms the very consumers Democrats claim to help. University of Maryland researchers concluded Dodd-Frank “triggered a substantial redistribution of credit from middle-class households to wealthy households.”
Since Dodd-Frank became law, the share of banks offering free checking has fallen by half, average monthly fees have tripled, and the ranks of the unbanked and underbanked have increased by 3 million. When it comes to many financial products, consumers are paying more and getting less.
Dodd-Frank also promised to end taxpayer bailouts, but cynically codified them into law instead. The law promised to make our financial system more stable, yet today the big banks are even bigger, the small banks are fewer, and corporate bond markets are seeing historic levels of illiquidity and volatility.
Fortunately, President Donald Trump is committed to “dismantling Dodd-Frank,”and congressional Republicans are working to help keep that promise to the American people. Last month, the House passed our bill to replace Dodd-Frank called the Financial CHOICE Act, which stands for Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers, and Entrepreneurs. It promotes faster and healthier economic growth by replacing bailouts with bankruptcy, complexity with simplicity, and bureaucratic micromanagement with free market discipline.
With the Financial CHOICE Act, banks will receive significant relief from Washington’s regulatory burden if they choose to maintain sufficient capital. This not only makes our financial system safer, it also helps ensure that if banks run into financial trouble, they will survive without relying on taxpayers.
As a group of Nobel Prize-winning economists, former treasury secretaries, and senior economic policy officials noted in their endorsement of our bill, “the more banks are financed by capital, the less dangerous they are to the financial system and to the taxpayer, and so need less regulation.”
As the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. reported, 98 percent of banks that meet the CHOICE Act’s capital standard for regulatory relief survived the 2008 financial crisis. Of the miniscule percentage that failed, none posed a systemic risk. What does pose a systemic risk is the troubling growth of the federal financial safety net under Dodd-Frank.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s “Bailout Barometer” estimates that taxpayers are now on the hook for 62 percent, or $27 trillion, of the financial system’s liabilities because they are either explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the federal government.
So long as market participants believe Washington will ride to their rescue, they will be tempted to engage in reckless behavior. This leads to less productive uses of capital, greater financial fragility, and the likelihood that our already unsustainable national debt will grow even more so. The solution is to make clear in advance that shareholders, creditors, and counterparties alone will bear the consequences of the risks they choose to take, which is also known as market discipline. This is the approach of the Financial CHOICE Act.
Our plan prevents Washington bureaucrats from being able to designate companies as “too big to fail.” It also creates a new subchapter of the Bankruptcy Code tailored to address the failure of large, complex financial institutions. The bankruptcy process is administered by impartial judges charged with guaranteeing due process in public proceedings under well-settled rules and procedures.
By contrast, Dodd-Frank’s “Orderly Liquidation Authority” places vast amounts of discretion in a handful of unelected bureaucrats to seize an institution and wind it down, paying off some creditors and imposing losses on others. The bankruptcy process also provides clarity that Orderly Liquidation Authority lacks. Under Orderly Liquidation Authority, the best that anyone can do is to surmise what the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. might do. That lack of certainty recreates the dangerous ad hoc policies of 2008 that helped precipitate the financial crisis.
Most importantly, bankruptcy does not depend on taxpayer funds to bail out, liquidate, or reorganize a failing institution. The same can’t be said for Dodd-Frank’s Orderly Liquidation Authority, by which taxpayers could be called upon to finance potentially trillions of dollars in bailouts.
Finally, the Financial CHOICE Act will not just end bailouts and promote greater growth and financial stability, it will also safeguard us from an even more dangerous prospect of Dodd-Frank—politicized lending that enables Washington to allocate capital. Dodd-Frank represents an alarming expansion of an unaccountable administrative state devoid of any reasonable semblance of checks and balances or due process.
Witness “Operation Choke Point,” through which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and other Obama-era regulators sought to strong-arm financial institutions into denying credit to lawful businesses because they were detested by the Obama administration, such as gun shops and payday lenders. Dodd-Frank’s equally frightening Financial Stability Oversight Council has been granted virtually unchecked power to name any large financial firm “too big to fail” under an opaque and standardless process. Once designated, the firm could be forced to end capital distributions to shareholders, or even be forced to divest or break up.
This is not the rule of law—it is the rule of rulers.
Under the Financial CHOICE Act, all financial regulatory agencies will be placed on budget and subject to congressional oversight. Their rulemaking will require both cost-benefit analysis and congressional review. The Chevron doctrine, which elevates government agencies’ interpretation of law over defendants’, will be repealed. In essence, the CHOICE Act restores the rule of law and due process.
It’s been seven years since Dodd-Frank became law, and all of its lofty promises to end bailouts, lift our economy, and protect consumers have proven false. Congress should make sure this month’s anniversary of Dodd-Frank is its last. The Financial CHOICE Act, which holds both Washington and Wall Street accountable, offers a better way—economic growth for all and bank bailouts for none.
Well, I guess things are moving faster then anyone thought as president Trump stood up and said 'transgender' individuals will no longer be allowed in the military', or something like that. Still, we are moving in the right direction. The transgender community will have to find the funding some other way, or maybe even to have to pay for the surgery themselves. Barack's idea was to have his friends in the transgender movement get their surgery paid for out of the military budget, the taxpayers. Trump stopped it yesterday.
House Conservatives Try Again to Block Funding for Transgender Treatments in Military Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH /
Some House Republicans are taking another shot at blocking funding for gender transition surgeries in the military, projected to cost about $3.7 billion over the next decade. Earlier this month, 23 House Republicans joined Democrats to defeat an amendment by Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., to block the funding for transgender treatments in the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. The NDAA sets priorities for military spending.
“We are $20 trillion in debt and the taxpayers … are projected to spend $3.7 billion in the next 10 years for sex-reassignment surgeries,” @RepScottPerry says.
The military budget is already strained, said Thomas Spoehr, director of the Center for National Defense at The Heritage Foundation.
Spoehr, a retired Army lieutenant general, recalled one enlistee diagnosed with asthma who would need an inhaler. Even though he wanted to serve, he couldn’t. “We don’t permit others to join the military if we know they will require future medical treatment,” Spoehr told The Daily Signal. “I don’t know why it would be different here.”
However, Spoehr said he wouldn’t want to delay the entire appropriations bill. “I don’t want to see a continuing resolution,” Spoehr said. “I hope Congress can do the right thing and pass the bill and pass the amendment.”
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., has offered an amendment to the “Make America Safe Act,” which could be voted on this week. This is the Defense Department appropriations bill that essentially funds the NDAA priorities. Dan Holler, vice president of communications and government relations at Heritage Action for America, said Heritage Action supports the Perry amendment, but doesn’t yet have a position on the larger bill. Heritage Action previously endorsed the Hartzler amendment to the NDAA.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis delayed admitting new, openly transgender military members until after Jan. 1, when the matter can be reviewed. The NDAA looks ahead at funding priorities for the next decade. “The Trump Department of Defense should not be protecting the radical social agenda of the Obama administration,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.
Perkins noted that Republicans are definitely not opposed to increased military funding, but want the money to be used wisely. Perkins said conservatives are willing to block the “Make America Safe Act,” which would boost military funding by $80 billion, if it’s clear the military wouldn’t be spending the money wisely.
Some of the 23 Republicans have said they voted on the advice of Defense Department officials, but Perkins noted, “It’s the prerogative of Congress. They have the purse strings.” Obama Secretary of Defense “Ash Carter pulled the pin in this grenade. We just want the Trump Defense Department to put it back,” Perkins said, remarking that the public will put pressure on the Republicans.
The House Republicans, mostly from blue or purple states, who voted against the Hartzler amendment to the NDAA are:
Justin Amash and Jack Bergman of Michigan; Mike Coffman of Colorado; Barbara Comstock of Virginia; Carlos Curbelo and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida; Paul Cook, Jeff Denham, Steve Knight and Darrell Issa of California; Ryan Costello, Charlie Dent, Brian Fitzpatrick and Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania; John Faso, John Katko, Tom Reed, Elise Stefanik and Claudia Tenney of New York; Leonard Lance, Frank LoBiondo and Tom MacArthur of New Jersey, and Dave Reichert of Washington state.
These Republicans showed courage, said Matt Thorn, executive director for OutServe-Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. “These Republicans stood up and did the right thing,” Thorn told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “The Hartzler amendment and this amendment are discriminatory on their face because they target one group of people in the area of health care. It’s ridiculous for the Republicans to try to attempt this again.”
Speaking about the amendment on the House floor on July 14, Perry said:
We are $20 trillion in debt and the taxpayers, by my figures, are projected to spend $3.7 billion in the next 10 years for sex-reassignment surgeries and hormone therapies for those in the military that wish to transition from one sex to another. The total cost includes the manpower while the individual transitions, which can take up to a year or longer.
Hartzler hopes to see the House pass the Perry amendment. “Steps must be taken to address this misuse of our precious defense dollars,” Hartzler told The Daily Signal in a statement. “This policy hurts our military’s readiness and will take over a billion dollars from the Department of Defense’s budget. This is still an important issue that needs to be addressed.” A RAND Corp. study determined that 2,500 service members and another 1,500 in the reserves were transgender.
A Rasmussen poll released Friday found that 23 percent of likely voters support allowing openly transgender individuals to serve in the military. Another 31 percent said it’s bad for the military, while 38 percent said it would have no impact.
I love the comment here by the progressive socialists liberal democrats about the ''expertise of the civil service''. Oh my goodness. What a hoot!! What government agency or department that isn't infested by partisan democrats? The rot is systemic. What gall on the part of the progressive democrats that are partisan to a fault, and little wonder I refer to them as a collective and not a party. And that the Freedom Caucus worries about not being ''flexible'' and not having a 'contrarian reputation' is depressing, given how the democrats operate. Goodness. Just imagine the democrats worrying about how they look to the public. The progressive democrats couldn't care less what the general public thinks. They do what ever it takes to steal taxpayer dollars to fatten campaign coffers and steal as many votes as the can to get and keep power. It's called 'by any means necessary'! That Conservatives are on the move to get rid of the CBO that has been historically wrong is a good thing. And as expected, the democrats have set up to hollowing like someone just stepped on their collective dicks!( Sorry about that, but I just couldn't help it.)
House Conservatives Target Jobs at Congressional Budget Office Katrina Willis /
The jobs of 89 federal workers involved in estimating the budget impact of legislation in Congress would be eliminated under a proposal from members of the House’s upstart conservative caucus.
Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said Monday that members would deploy an obscure rule that allows a House member to seek changes in an agency by offering an amendment during the budget process.
Called the Holman rule, it dates to the decade after the Civil War, hasn’t been used since President Ronald Reagan’s first term, and was revived by House Republicans when the new Congress convened in January.
Federal News Radio reported that the entire Budget Analysis Division of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, comprising 89 employees and about $15 million in salaries, would be “abolished” under the amendment offered by Meadows and three other Republicans—Reps. Morgan Griffith of Virginia, Jim Jordan of Ohio, and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania.
Meadows and the other three House members attached the amendment cutting the CBO to a so-called “minibus” of spending bills for fiscal year 2018 that includes defense, military construction, veterans affairs, energy, and water, according to Federal News Radio. The Holman rule “gives us the tool to go in and cut the funding without cutting an entire agency,” Meadows said in an appearance at the National Press Club.
Cutting personnel at the Congressional Budget Office who “score” the cost and other effects of legislation such as the main House and Senate health care bills is where the caucus decided to begin, he said.
The Freedom Caucus chairman said that independent CBO process could be replaced by aggregate scores of budgetary impact from think tanks, and he named American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, The Heritage Foundation, and Urban Institute. “We ought to take a score from Heritage, from AEI, from Brookings … ,” Meadows said.
Lawmakers, especially conservatives, long have questioned the CBO’s accuracy in predicting the costs and related consequences of legislation, especially predictions about Obamacare, formally known as the Affordable Care Act, and most recently proposals in the House and Senate to replace it.
Some conservatives, for example, criticize the CBO for predicting more than 20 million Americans would “lose” health insurance, when eliminating Obamacare mandates in their view would allow millions of consumers to choose not to buy “one size fits all” insurance.
Democrats assailed the move by Meadows and his Republican colleagues. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and six other Democrats representing the metropolitan Washington area, for example, issued a statement decrying the idea. It said, in part:
The Holman rule empowers members of Congress to target individual federal employees. The rule is being used to punish an important advisory body for doing its job by providing forecasts which some members now find inconvenient. This is part of a strategic assault on objectivity and expertise in the civil service.
Freedom Caucus members will talk about the proposal this week, Meadows said. Meadows also addressed the failure so far of Republicans either to repeal or to repeal and replace Obamacare, as they promised in four elections. “We originally wanted a straight repeal. We all voted on it in 2015,” Meadows said. “We felt like, if we did the hard work of repealing, we could get some Democrats to help with the replacement side of that.”
As it turned out, the Freedom Caucus chairman said, individual caucus members realized the resulting legislation would “not be perfect” and they needed to show more flexibility to avoid a contrarian reputation.
“We’re trying to make sure we give at least two alternatives for a solution,” he said. The caucus won some concessions in the final version of the House’s health care bill, but the Senate legislation so far varies markedly from it. Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.
Just something to think about on what has made America great. The two most important aspects of our Constitution is to guarantee personal freedom and the right to own property. Being a victim is not a right but a choice no matter the situation you are in. Know this, it's only temporary. Keep digging, stay the course. The freedom to chose to be better then you ever thought you could be is what America is all about. Always chose freedom. 'Freedom means having nothing else to lose' Conundrum.............. "A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one. You'll probably never need one again."
The definition of the word Conundrum is: something that is puzzling or confusing.
Here are six Conundrums of Socialism in the United States of America : 1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized. 2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims. 3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government. 4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer. 5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other Countries only dream about. 6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about, yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
Think about it! And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century.
Makes you wonder who is doing the math. By the way...................
1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, But we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works. And here's another one worth considering...
2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money? What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.
I'm an American citizen and I love this country that has given me everything. I believe that America is the last hope in this world for Democracy and Freedom. She must be defended at all costs!
