Trump's Executive Order on Fossil Energy : Reformes For Prosperity.

What exactly is the relationship between the oil industry and the politicians? It sure makes good sense that the tourism and fishing industry are not fighting the new executive order from Trump, as it benefits both with more jobs and more revenue coming into those areas where drilling has a foot hold now and where the new order for drilling and exploration will be expanded.

Still I find it more then a little interesting and confusing at the same time as to why the progressives democrats, along with their cash needy allies in the environmental industry, are so adamant about stopping off-shore drilling, or for that matter any drilling of any kind any where for fossil energy?

And hey, what really happened with the oil spill in the Gulf and what exactly was Barack's intention here why he waited so long to do anything to stop the spread of the oil coming ashore? I wonder!

I know Barack wanted to stop all fossil energy exploration and production as well as ending nuclear energy production. His plan was to force the population to live with less available energy resources other then ''renewables'',  to begin his jihad for America's decline from world leadership. And what better way to do that then restricting the populations options for prosperity.

Luckily the people that matter saw though the duplicity and delusionary vision of Barack, voted to make a change in the direction and ideology in America, back to the Constitution, common sense  and free markets to save the country from default.

Trump Opens Doors on Oil Exploration, but Deeper Reforms Still Needed
Nicolas Loris / @NiconomistLoris / April 28, 2017

In another move to free up domestic energy supplies, President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday aimed at lifting the Obama administration’s offshore drilling restrictions. For decades, bad policies have blocked access to America’s abundance of domestic resources, yet America has still managed to be a global energy leader. Trump’s executive order, “Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,” could unleash further success in the energy sector.

The economic potential sitting just off America’s coasts is enormous. The Outer Continental Shelf is awash with natural resources, containing an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Realizing that potential could create nearly a million American jobs, and the increased energy supplies that would result would put money back into the bank accounts of American families. It would also generate new prospects for investment and job creation, as cheap energy lowers the cost of business operations across all sectors, not just energy.

The federal government has placed various bans on offshore drilling for decades. Last November, the Obama administration’s Department of Interior finalized some of the most restrictive leasing programs to date. The Interior Department’s final 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program was best known for the areas it placed off limits, rather than what it made available to lease for energy exploration. It excluded lease sales in the oil-rich Beaufort or Chukchi seas off the coasts of Alaska, as well as areas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The Interior Department also restricted opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico and the Cook Inlet off south central Alaska.

Critics of Trump’s decision to free up leasing are making the same arguments they’ve made for years: “Oil prices are too low, so the decision won’t spur more oil exploration. Drilling offshore takes too long, so it’s not going to have any immediate impact.” But those arguments ignore the biggest drivers of investment. Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis were spot on in writing for The Washington Post, “[L]ocal political considerations and the global energy market are likely to influence future exploration far more than an executive order in Washington.” While Trump’s executive order will open more doors for exploration, it won’t automatically trigger an energy boom. That’s the way it should be.

Oil prices are long-term and, as history has shown, can increase rather quickly. Industry makes investment decisions looking decades into the future, not simply based on short-term projections.
Although it certainly is possible that low oil prices could prohibit offshore production, that’s a decision for the private sector to consider. Businesses are much better equipped and flexible to deal with changing economic circumstances than shortsighted politicians in Washington. Another battle cry for of those who oppose offshore drilling is: Do we really want to risk another Deepwater Horizon spill?

The Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010, which caused environmental degradation in the Gulf of Mexico, was a rare and isolated incident, not a result of any systemic problem associated with offshore oil and gas operations. That’s not to say flaws don’t exist in the current system or that improvements can’t be made. In fact, after Deepwater Horizon, Congress examined the government-imposed offshore liability cap but never implemented any prudent solution.

Current law states that oil or gas companies do not have to pay more than $75 million in liability costs for accidents they cause—no matter how great the damages. Additional fees can be paid out of a government-mandated trust fund (the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund), which effectively socializes the risk of offshore oil and gas activities.

Congress should reform the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and remove the $75 million liability cap, replacing it with a new system that assesses the risks of offshore oil and gas operations and appropriately assigns those risks to industry operators. A new approach would accurately assign risk to all offshore operations, including exploratory drilling, production, and tanker movements.
Such a system should also hold operators fully liable for their actions and guard against frivolous lawsuits. It should rely on market-based mechanisms and be built around private insurers and professional risk assessors.

Environmental activists aren’t the only ones opposed to Trump’s executive order. Some members of the tourism industry have also voiced concerns about expanded drilling off the Atlantic. But the energy industry has worked in perfect harmony with other industries. Just look to the Gulf Coast. Every year, residents of the Gulf come to Morgan City, Louisiana, to celebrate the lifeblood of the region’s economy: seafood and oil. Morgan City’s Shrimp and Petroleum Festival emphasizes “the unique way in which these two seemingly different industries work hand-in-hand culturally and environmentally in this area of the ‘Cajun Coast.’”

While the Deepwater Horizon spill affected all industries in the Gulf Coast, the majority of seafood and tourism companies supported the oil industry throughout the ordeal. In fact, in many respects, the spill has strengthened the bond between the oil and seafood industry. Shrimpers and fishers were as vocal as anyone in lifting the offshore drilling ban after the spill. Drilling off the Atlantic coasts could welcome the same symbiotic relationship, which already exists in the Gulf and in the state of Alaska.
Furthermore, states should collect more royalty revenue for offshore production.

Currently, states receive 50 percent of the revenues generated by onshore oil and natural gas production on federal lands, and Congress should apply this allocation offshore as well. Drilling off states’ coasts and allowing them a larger share of the royalty revenue would encourage more state involvement in drilling decisions.

Offshore drilling would also promote state and local government participation in allocating funds, helping them to close their deficits, enabling coastal restoration and conservation, and shoring up funds for schools.

Trump’s executive order is a welcome step to increasing access to domestic resources, but the back-and-forth of banning resource exploration and then undoing it is a sign that wholesale reform is necessary. The politicization of the leasing program and the static central planning process that has stifled a dynamic, constantly changing energy market points to the need for legislative action. It is time for a fundamental reconsideration of how the U.S. manages offshore resource development.
Congress should amend the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act and get rid of this antiquated, piecemeal leasing approach.

Trump Meeting With Abbas : Where IS Palestine?

The question that remains for many of us in the trenches is, who are the Palestinians and why are they still encamped waiting for a decision from their leadership to lead them to a new land of milk and honey? What has transpired over the last 30 or 40 years that has made a difference in their living condition or the prospects of a future home?

What difference does it make if you have one state or two state solution here, if members of one side what's only to kill everyone on the other side as they stated for centuries, just please explain the profitability of talking about peace?

This is crazy stuff. If Hamas is the problem, then that is who we have to deal with, one way or the other. Abbas is a loser just like Arafat was, except Arafat was a mass killer himself. Bill Clinton will attest to that.

What’s at Stake in Trump Meeting With Palestinian Leader
Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / May 01, 2017   

President Donald Trump will meet with the leader of the Palestinian Authority this week, ahead of his first trip to Israel expected later this month..  Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will visit the White House Wednesday, with a U.S. president that seems decidedly pro-Israel, while also genuinely interested in a Middle East peace deal. “The president’s ultimate goal is to establish peace in the region and so I think that’s obviously the goal and the discussion he’s going to have with the head of the Palestinian Authority,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer told The Daily Signal during the White House press briefing on Monday.

“That’s going to be a relationship he’s going to continue to work on and build with the ultimate goal that there is peace in that region between Israel and the Palestinian Authority,” Spicer added.
Still, considering the political problems Abbas is facing among his own people, experts have a mixed view on whether the visit will have any significance. As a candidate, Trump pledged to relocate the Israeli Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move that could spark rage among Palestinians.

The Daily Signal asked Monday if Trump will talk about moving the embassy during his Wednesday meeting with Abbas. “That is still being discussed by staff,” Spicer told The Daily Signal.
In an interview last week, Trump told Reuters, “ask me in a month on that,” about moving the embassy to Jerusalem. “I want to see peace with Israel and the Palestinians,” the president added. “There is no reason there’s not peace between Israel and the Palestinians—none whatsoever.”

The meeting presents a major opportunity for Abbas, said Robert Danin, a senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “President Trump is not interested in peace process or in negotiations for negotiations’ sake. He is interested in a deal,” Danin told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “There are a lot of questions about Abbas and his political standing. He has to convince the president that he can close the deal. It’s a big challenge, but it’s also a tremendous opportunity.”

Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in February. During a joint press conference with the two leaders, Trump predicted a “bigger and better” Middle East peace deal than anyone expects. He asked Israel to hold back on settlements, and said he is open to a two-state solution or one-state solution, whichever is more likely to bring peace. Trump has said that his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, would be in charge of reaching a peace deal.

Danin added that Trump could be in a stronger position than previous presidents, and could even put pressure on Israel that President Barack Obama couldn’t. “The people of Israel believe Trump is on their side,” Danin said. “President Trump doesn’t believe settlements and settlers are bad guys. He believes the settlements are part of the answer, but he hasn’t demonized the settlers as President Obama did. They believe he wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem, no matter what he does.”

At this stage, Abbas has little influence as a leader, said Jim Phillips, a senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs with The Heritage Foundation. “I think the Abbas visit will yield little results. Abbas is unwilling and unable to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel on acceptable terms,” Phillips told The Daily Signal.

Abbas, 82, is facing a tough political climate at home. Though his term was supposed to expire in 2009, he remained in power without an election nor designated successor. His party, Fatah, is also divided. “He has no control over Hamas, which is virulently opposed to Israel’s existence, let alone negotiations, and it would torpedo any final accord he would sign,” Phillips said. “Even many of his own supporters within Fatah have abandoned him. He is yesterday’s man and is increasingly irrelevant to what happens tomorrow.”

Trump did the right thing in reaching out to Abbas for a meeting, said Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy, a conservative foreign policy think tank in the District of Columbia. However, she said no one should expect a breakthrough on a peace deal.
“I’m not exactly sure why the U.S. keeps trying. Every time, the Palestinians were offered a deal, a good deal, under President [Bill] Clinton, under President [George W.] Bush, they walked away,” Lopez told The Daily Signal. “Whether it’s Hamas in Gaza or Fatah in the West Bank, this is Islam, it’s not political.”

Lopez said that any Palestinian leader who wanted to recognize Israel’s right to exist would be marginalized, accused of apostasy, and likely to face threats to his life.

Underreported or Not At All : The Fence Works In San Diego

Watch the video blow and then understand why the progressive socialist liberal democrats are so unhinged about building a boarder wall. And why the progressive socialist liberal media will not report the positive changes that the existing wall has provided for San Diego and for that matter, Mexico.

It is very clear to me that the entire frenzy over building the wall is about the progressive democrats losing voters now and in the future. It has been shown in several reports from witnesses that the illegal immigrants are registered to vote shortly after they arrive in the United States. 

It is all about the power to control. There can be no alternative to absolute power for progressive democrats. Getting and keeping it by any means necessary. There are no limits. All opposition to their personal agenda and ideology is paramount and must be stopped or destroyed. The country be dammed!

Underreported: How Building a Border Wall Changed San Diego
Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness / May 01, 2017

In 1986, the San Diego Border Patrol sector accounted for approximately one-third of all apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border. Today, it accounts for only a small fraction.
How did the region go from one of the busiest sectors for illegal border crossings to one of the most secure? In our latest edition of “Underreported,” The Daily Signal visits the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego to find out.

Watch the video : https://youtu.be/_8cSahdq0R4 (Copy and paste)

The Spending Bill Disaster : Will Trump Fix It In September?

Well, I guess we know how this all turned out and it is truly a loser for Republicans and more importantly the population of this country.

For the progressive socialist democrats it is a winner as they stopped a lot of good measures to begin the healing of the damage Barack and his ilk in the liberal government that saw fit to demonize and destroy much of what makes the country function as a federation and not a democratic socialist state.

Even with the Republicans controlling all government agencies and departments now, they still lost the battle for the people. Hopefully only a battle and not the war that is being fought by the progressive socialist liberal democrats against our civil society. And believe it is a war, nothing less.

Still, I believe we have to have faith in Trump and the cooler heads in congress will do the necessary heavy lifting to prepare for the next budget bill that will come in September. If they fail in this task, let alone the Replace and Repeal OgbjmaCare and Tax Reform, there will surly be hell to pay for Republicans.

Spending Deal Near After Congress Gives Itself a Few More Days to Craft Package
Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / April 28, 2017   

Hours before the federal government’s spending authority expired Friday at midnight, the Senate advanced a one-week continuing resolution by voice vote, putting spending on autopilot and avoiding a looming government shutdown. The Senate action followed a 382-30 House vote to pass the one-week extension. Without the measure, the government would have run out of money as Friday turned to Saturday.

Update: Congressional negotiators agreed late Sunday on a broad spending plan to fund the government through September, The Washington Post reported, citing several aides who also said Democrats got their way with Republicans in key policy areas. Congress is expected to vote within days on the roughly $1 trillion package, which the newspaper said includes $12.5 billion in new military spending and $1.5 billion more for border security, but not to begin constructing a wall.
The makeshift spending agreement allowed lawmakers in the House and Senate another week to negotiate and pass a huge, omnibus spending bill to fund the government through the rest of fiscal year 2017, which ends Sept. 30.

“It really bothers me that we’re so late in getting this thing done,” Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., said of the 11th-hour spending resolution in an interview Friday with The Daily Signal. Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., a member of the House Appropriations Committee, told The Daily Signal before the weekend that the omnibus bill, expected to be introduced Monday, was progressing well.
“My understanding is that the omnibus bill is nearly complete, that … we may actually be able to combine all the separate appropriations bills into that omnibus bill, and that’s good news,” Harris said in an interview. President Donald Trump signed the stopgap spending measure later Friday, the White House announced. Votes on the omnibus bill were expected Thursday.

Funding for Trump’s promised border wall is not included. Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have said they prefer to put off a fight with Democrats over beginning to pay for the wall until the fall, rather than as part of funding the government for the rest of the current fiscal year.
“Full border wall funding can’t be there at this point,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., a supporter of the wall, said in a recent interview with The Daily Signal. “It’s not designed, prototypes have not been created.”
White House Vows Funding for Border Wall, Just Not Now

Authorization of the new border-security money requires that the Trump administration use it only for technology  and repairs to existing fencing and infrastructure, The Post reported. Biggs said he was preparing an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood for inclusion in the omnibus spending bill. He said it mirrors Vice President Mike Pence’s amendment to defund Planned Parenthood that the House passed in 2011, when Pence was a Republican congressman from Indiana.

Update: According to The Post’s report Sunday night, the legislation as drafted would ensure that Planned Parenthood continues to receive federal funding through September. The newspaper reported that Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., “boasted that they were able to force Republicans to withdraw more than 160 unrelated policy measures, known as riders, including those that would have cut environmental funding and scaled back financial regulations for Wall Street.”

The Post quoted Schumer as saying: “The bill ensures taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall, excludes poison pill riders and increases investments in programs that the middle class relies on, like medical research, education and infrastructure.”

National defense must be a priority in the omnibus bill, Harris told The Daily Signal on Friday.

“I look forward to a very lively discussion for the next year’s appropriations bills on the president’s plan to begin to prioritize funding within the non mandatory side of the ledger and to re-emphasize defense of the nation and homeland security as a top priority,” Harris said.  
Pelosi earlier had predicted a battle between Democrats and Republicans over the omnibus bill.  
“There are probably still 70 poison pills in the bill that we can’t live with,” Pelosi said Wednesday on CNN.

“One party now controls the White House and both chambers of Congress,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., ranking  member of the Appropriations Committee, said in a prepared statement about the one-week extension. “It is incumbent upon them to ensure that the government of the American people stays open and is fully funded.” Biggs sounded cautiously optimistic about what those crafting the omnibus would present to fellow lawmakers.  “I hope they produce something in writing soon because I don’t know how they expect people to vote on stuff they don’t have time to read,” the Arizona Republican said.  

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report, which has been updated to reflect the apparent agreement on a spending package reached Sunday night, as well as the president’s signing of the stopgap spending bill.

Gender Identity Problem At HUD : Barack Ruled Against Women. Surprised?

The transgender bathroom rule, not legislation, was jammed down the throats of  more then 160 million women and girls by Barack, was intentional and calculating. That this ruling is mostly unlawful and inhuman, but it can also be seen as criminal, in that allowing predator men to have access to women bathrooms and showers is putting girls and women at high risk for being sexually attacked.

And not so strange a ruling as one might think  for Barack as he had to know and understand how these women and girls, especially young girls would be put at extreme risk of being cruelly abused while they were in a private place believing they had a secure place to perform bodily functions without  placing themselves at risk.

But we all are aware from his history of playing one group or individual against one another, for Barack it's not about what is right for the population, it what's right to gain an advantage with some voting group at the expense of another, and in this case it is women.

I wonder then, how many women voted for Barack in 2012, and how many women don't care if they were or are being abused by Barack's  friends? He is the ONE they have been waiting for no matter the consequences.

Groups Urge Ben Carson to Spike Gender Identity Rule for HUD Shelters
Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / April 28, 2017

Citing safety for women, 40 leaders of groups across the country have signed a letter asking Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson to rescind and revise a gender identity rule adopted by the Obama administration for government shelters.  

The rule, published in September 2016, allows all individuals to use HUD men’s and women’s shelters based on their gender identity, regardless of whether they were born male or female.
“Dear Mr. Secretary,” the letter to Carson reads, “We write to urge you to … protect the safety and privacy of women in need of shelter due to homelessness or violence.”
The writers add:

We are a diverse group of women and organizations allied in a common cause: mothers, feminists, women of faith, lesbian and bisexual women’s rights activists, and concerned neighbors, convened through the Hands Across the Aisle Coalition, to request your consideration for our sisters without stable housing.

The HUD-run shelters, services, and programs covered by the rule are for men and women who are homeless, or about to be so, and for women fleeing domestic violence. The letter is the work of the Hands Across the Aisle Coalition, a group of conservative and liberal women who work to fight what they consider anti-woman positions promoted by the transgender movement.  The coalition planned to submit the letter to HUD on Monday. The rule’s formal title is “Equal Access in Accordance with an Individual’s Gender Identity in Community Planning and Development Programs.”

The signers of the letter ask Carson to rescind and revise the regulation to reflect that “single-sex facilities should not be forced to permit clients of the opposite biological sex, that men who identify as women or nonbinary must be kept safe at men’s facilities, and that women who identify as men or nonbinary should be kept safe at women’s facilities.”

Nonbinary refers to a “combination of both male and female, or neither, or in between,” Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation who writes on gender identity issues, told The Daily Signal in an email.  

The Daily Signal’s Kelsey Harkness previously produced a video about the Hands Across the Aisle Coalition:

Kristen

Bridgan-Brown, 42, a mother and a victim of rape and abuse from Tacoma, Washington, stayed at a shelter for women during her recovery. She says this is a personal issue for her. “A man’s presence would have been a complete deal breaker,” Bridgan-Brown said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal. “I would have left. In my mind, my known abuser would have been better to go back to, than someone who had the potential to hurt me that I didn’t know.”

During her time at the Family Renewal Shelter in Tacoma, Bridgan-Brown said, she shared restroom facilities, a kitchen, a living room, a dining room, and a laundry room with other women and their children. She said it was important that she shared those facilities with her own gender. “Women from domestic violence relationships need a safe space away from men to regroup and process,” Bridgan-Brown told The Daily Signal. “It takes years to heal, but it’s the necessary start of a long journey.”  

Autumn Leva, director of policy and communication for the Family Policy Alliance, an organization that seeks to protect religious freedom and family values, said the Trump administration must change the government rule.  “This rule defies common sense, defeats the very purpose of women-only shelters for victims of abuse, and threatens the safety and dignity of women in need of HUD facilities,” Leva said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal.  Over 1 million people are served each year in HUD’s housing program for the homeless, according to the agency.

CitizenGO, an organization that seeks to “defend and promote life, family, and liberty,” hosts a Hands Across the Aisle Coalition petition asking that Carson change the rule. “For most of us, this isn’t even a hard issue,” Joseph Backholm, president of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, which promotes traditional family values and opposes the rule, said in an email to The Daily Signal, adding:  

Those who find themselves in need of a women and children’s shelter are often escaping dangerous and abusive situations. I don’t have the nerve to tell them they don’t have the right to be concerned about sharing a room with a complete stranger who is a biological male and I don’t think the federal government should either.

The Human Rights Campaign, a major advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, and the Center for American Progress, a think tank that advances LGBT activists’ goals, did not respond to The Daily Signal’s requests for comments on the Obama administration’s gender identity rule for HUD shelters.  

Dana Hodges, state director for Concerned Women for America of Texas, a conservative women’s advocacy organization, said the rule is counterproductive.  “The fact that [women] could be faced with sharing these facilities with men who seek to exploit these ‘gender-fluid’ guidelines as an opportunity to prey on these women is unthinkable and wholly unacceptable,” Hodges said.
Matt Sharp, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal that under HUD’s rulemaking process, officials could write a rule restoring the original language and ask for public comment before adopting it.

The rule potentially could be rescinded by Congress using the Congressional Review Act, Paul Larkin, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email. 

It's Family Picture Time : Show Us Your Best Side!

It's a family picture, again. It's a time honored tradition. What's your best side?

Okay, it that time again for the family picture. Yeah I know it's a pain but we all have to do once in a while.

 So everyone line up and give us your best smile.

Hey quit goofing around and pay attention here. Ready? Say cheese!

Vetting The Immigrants : The Founders Understood The Threat.

Question - why is there so much push back from progressive socialist liberal democrats for any kind of legislation to stem the flow of illegal immigrants from all over the world, and refugees from war torn areas that foster terrorist proclamations that they want us all enslaved or dead?

What possible reason could they, the progressive democrats have to want us all to die? A lot of democrats will die as well, they have to know that, right? So why the all out stonewalling in congress and the justice system of the presidents executive orders for vetting of all immigrants?

What do the democrats have in mind for the illegals coming here, both bad ones and good ones?

The History of ‘Extreme Vetting’ of Immigrants
Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / April 27, 2017

The United States began as a nation of immigrants, and it continues to be so today. The ability to absorb people from around the globe is a hallmark of American exceptionalism. America has succeeded mostly through what The Heritage Foundation’s Mike Gonzalez has called “patriotic assimilation,” in which immigrants have not just been taught how to adapt to the economy of the U.S., but also the customs and beliefs of larger American culture.

It is this fading notion of assimilation that has been a great strength for America since its founding. But, the extraordinarily welcoming nature of this country can be turned against it; assimilation simply won’t work on those who are expressly opposed to the idea. U.S. immigration laws have varied over the country’s history, but they have generally evolved to meet internal needs and external threats.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that President Donald Trump’s administration is considering “extreme vetting” of both visitors to the U.S. and potential immigrants to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring within American borders. This is in line with a campaign speech in which Trump said he wanted to weed out terrorist sympathizers with “hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles” from coming into the country.

While details of what Trump’s extreme vetting will look like are unclear, some have already come out to call it “Muslim-targeted” and likely to be ineffective. It is important to keep the current debate in perspective of our changing immigration laws through the centuries.

Founders Warn of the ‘Grecian Horse’
The Founding Fathers had different ideas about immigration, but almost universally understood that it was important for new arrivals to both adapt to the American norms and also not present a direct threat to the United States.

Thomas Jefferson noted in his famous “Notes on the State of Virginia” that a good immigration policy is not simply about numbers of arrivals and labor markets. He asked rhetorically: “ … Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

Jefferson argued that the U.S. was built on a unique set of principles, and that Americans should be cautious when importing people from tyrannical countries. Alexander Hamilton, who was an immigrant himself, also warned of “too unqualified admission of foreigners,” but said there was a “wide difference between closing the door altogether and throwing it entirely open.” “To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country … ” Hamilton cautioned, “ … would be nothing less, than to admit the Grecian Horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

The Founders’ solution to the conundrum of being a land that both welcomes immigrants, yet keeps its core ideals intact, is assimilatory schools, homes, and general culture. Additionally, laws would be put in place to create a rigorous naturalization process to weed out those hostile to American liberty.
Those who truly wanted to become Americans would be welcomed with open arms, but the burden was placed on the immigrant to show that he was willing to take the extra steps to adapt to living in a new land. He had to prove that he wanted to be a good citizen who held an unqualified belief in the founding documents.

‘Principles Hostile to All Government’
There was generally little control of immigration during the early part of the 19th century—in part due to the fact that the country was land rich and labor poor. Ideological vetting was rarely on the table. However, immigration laws changed as the century wore on and the population expanded, becoming more stringent, and, unfortunately, at times nativist.

But in response to outside, ideological attacks on the American way of life toward the beginning of the 20th century, immigration laws were adjusted to weed out those who specifically intended to destroy the foundations of the country.

For instance, immigration laws changed in response to the threat of anarchism. After the Haymarket bombing in 1886—likely conducted by anarchist agitators—and the assassination of President William McKinley by anarchist Leon F. Czolgosz in 1901, the American people were ready to take decisive action against this rising peril. So Congress passed the Anarchist Exclusion Act in 1903 in an attempt to keep hostile ideologues out of the country. The legislation was strongly supported by President Theodore Roosevelt, a proponent of assimilation who railed against the creation of “hyphenated Americans” and anarchist violence. Roosevelt said in support of the 1903 law in his first annual message to Congress:

I earnestly recommend to the Congress that in the exercise of its wise discretion it should take into consideration the coming to this country of anarchists or persons professing principles hostile to all government and justifying the murder of those placed in authority … They and those like them should be kept out of this country; and if found here they should be promptly deported to the country whence they came.

Similar legislation to the 1903 law was passed throughout the 20th century to exclude communists and fascists seeking to emigrate to America. These laws were curtailed by the Immigration Act of 1990 at the close of the Cold War in response to the receding threat of international communism. However, the current process of naturalization still contains a basic ideological test for newcomers, including the oath immigrants must recite renouncing allegiance to foreign governments while upholding support for the Constitution.

Throughout American history, ideological vetting of immigrants seeking to obtain the blessing of U.S. residency and citizenship has occasionally been used in cases of a perceived threat from abroad. As many Founders suggested, if the United States is truly a sovereign country with a Constitution designed for “we, the people,” then Americans have a right to exclude those who wish to destroy it.

Health Bill Moves Forward And Backward : The Base Wonders Why!

This is all very frustrating and confusing. Why is it so difficult to just writhe a bill with all of the concerns of all the parties, then get it passed and sent on to the Senate? Then they can hack away on it until they come up with something, and then bring it back to the House to begin the process of finding common ground with both branches of government.

I know it's about the dynamics of the Republican party being diverse and not single minded like the progressive socialist liberal democrat collective, but surly the Republicans should have had time over the last 8 years to craft a bill that was comprehensive enough to satisfy all the opposition, Right?

But no, and why? It sure looks like the Republicans believed Trump, and or any other Republican for that matter would lose the election to Hillary Clinton, so the sat on their hands as the easiest way out of taking responsibility, a trade mark , it seems , of the Republicans.

What’s Next as House GOP Gains Conservatives’ Backing for Bill to Replace Obamacare
Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97 / April 28, 2017   

For Republicans in Congress, the path to repealing and replacing Obamacare could be made more difficult by less conservative members who say a revised proposal would cause health insurance premiums to swell for sick patients. GOP leaders were prepared to put a bill dismantling the health care law before lawmakers for a vote by Saturday, President Donald Trump’s 100th day in Congress.
But some Republicans remain wary of the new proposal, with as many as 27 lawmakers opposed to or leaning against the bill, according to The Huffington Post.

Republican leaders are working to persuade the centrist flank of the conference to back the amended proposal, called the American Health Care Act.

Republicans’ efforts to pass a bill repealing and replacing Obamacare were revived earlier this week after two leaders from the party’s centrist and conservative wings released a compromise amendment.

The amendment, crafted by Tuesday Group Co-chairman Tom MacArthur, R-N.J., and House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., would give states the option to pursue waivers to opt out of Obamacare’s regulations.

Conservatives pointed to the regulations—specifically one that mandated the services plans have to cover and a second that prevented insurers from charging sick customers more—as the reason for rising health insurance premiums. The so-called MacArthur amendment aimed to unite Republican lawmakers behind the bill. And indeed, the revision swayed some conservatives who initially opposed the legislation.

On Wednesday, the conservative Freedom Caucus announced its support for the revised health care bill, called the American Health Care Act. For the group to take an official position on legislation, 80 percent of its members must be in agreement. But for some Freedom Caucus members, the revised bill still fell short of full repeal.

In a statement Thursday announcing his opposition to the legislation, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., said support for it would mean breaking his promise to constituents to repeal Obamacare in full. “Let’s be honest, this bill will never be a full repeal,” Biggs told The Daily Signal. “It never keeps our promise.” Instead, the freshman lawmaker said, the waiver process created by the amendment indicated that Obamacare was left in place.

“The fact that you have to apply for a waiver—what do you think the states are asking a waiver from?” Biggs said. “They’re asking for a waiver from Obamacare. That means it remains in place.”
To win his support, the Arizona Republican said, the waiver process would need to be changed. Under Biggs’ preferred plan, states would need to notify the government that they have chosen to opt out of Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirement and community ratings rules. Biggs also said he would like to see the legislation allow for the sale of insurance across state lines—a reform Trump repeatedly backed on the campaign trail.

“Those two things there would drive prices down and simulate, to some extent, a repeal,” he said.
In addition to continued opposition from some conservatives, House Republican leaders are also confronted with growing opposition from centrist Republicans. Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pa., announced Thursday he would oppose the health care bill. “It threatens to send premiums skyrocketing for people with pre-existing conditions,” Meehan said in a statement. “It will make coverage more expensive for older Americans as they near retirement. And it threatens essential health care benefits like doctor’s office visits, opioid addiction treatment, and emergency room care.”
Others, including Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., say they are undecided. Diaz-Balart told reporters Thursday the revised proposal has “lots of red flags.” “I’m trying to figure out how this makes the legislation better,” he said.

The Florida Republican supported the original health care bill when it was before the House Budget Committee last month.

After the Freedom Caucus announced its support for the revised legislation, many influential conservative groups followed suit, including Heritage Action for America, Club for Growth, and FreedomWorks.

With the new momentum, the White House began pushing for a vote on the bill Friday or Saturday—which would hand Trump a legislative victory by April 29, his 100th day in office.
But Republican leaders quashed that possibility Thursday night. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told reporters the House would not vote on the health care bill Friday or Saturday, but said Friday leaders would bring the bill before lawmakers for a vote “as soon as possible.” Though the House is inching closer to a vote on the health care measure, it’s unclear how long it will be before a bill repealing and replacing Obamacare lands on Trump’s desk.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said the original measure was crafted to comply with the Senate’s rules of reconciliation, the fast-track budget process Republicans are using to pass the bill. But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., says he believes the MacArthur amendment would violate those rules, which would make the bill subject to a 60-vote threshold. Reconciliation bills pass with a simple majority, 51 votes. “Once again, House Republicans have made their bill worse for the health of the American people in order to buy off the Freedom Caucus and other conservatives,” Matt House, Schumer’s spokesman, told the Washington Examiner. “But once again, that effort is almost certainly going to run afoul of Senate reconciliation rules, ensuring that the bill with these provisions will need 60 votes to pass.”

Senate Democrats can raise points of order to challenge provisions of a reconciliation bill they argue violates the “Byrd rule,” which ensures reconciliation bills are budgetary in nature. Still, a House vote on the health care bill could come next week.

But Biggs warned that at this point, it’s unlikely Republicans will be able to pass a plan to mitigate premium hikes for 2018, since insurance companies are already in the initial stages of planning for next year. For Republicans, that could make the 2018 midterm elections tricky, the Arizona Republican said. “2018 becomes suddenly a very difficult year for Republicans to hold on to the House and Senate,” Biggs said. “I think all of us are in a tight spot.”

Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch : The Rule of Law Prevails, Not Ideology

The supreme court was and always has been the fall back position for the progressive socialist liberal democrats to get what they believe is the future of this country without legislation. And with the latest investigation into who voted for whom, it shows that more then 70% of federal judges contributed to and voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election.

Little wonder then Donald Trump will have to fight for every pieces of legislation that he and the Republicans want to enact, even through the people's representatives voted to make it happen.

But again, it's not about the law or the Constitution of the United States, it about the progressive socialist agenda, the ideology of  a central authority being supreme. And what better way to make that happened then to have the highest court in the land, ruled by progressive socialist to proclaim what is or what isn't lawful.

By the Grace of God himself, the tide of criminal activity, the disciples of debauchery of the law has come to an end, and by the hand of the people themselves who voted to say we cannot allow this mutative insurgency of liberalism to continue.


Trump’s Gorsuch Success Paves Way for Nation Governed by Lawmakers, Not Judges
Katrina Trinko / @KatrinaTrinko / April 27, 2017   

Long after Donald Trump has left the White House, Justice Neil Gorsuch will likely still be at the Supreme Court. Once it didn’t look like it would happen this way. And it’s to the enormous credit of the Trump White House—and the Trump campaign, which relentlessly focused on the Supreme Court—that it did happen.

Of course, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did a stellar job in refusing to give President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, a vote—saying that voters deserved a chance to weigh in on this important appointment, given how Justice Antonin Scalia died less than a year before the presidential election.

Trump regularly discussed the Supreme Court opening on the trail, and talked about picking from a list of qualified judges that his campaign developed with help from the Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, the parent organization of The Daily Signal. Gorsuch was on that list—and now he’s poised to spend decades making Americans’ lives better by ensuring that laws are made by lawmakers, not the courts.

Too often in recent decades, we’ve seen the Supreme Court act as lawmakers rather than judges, perhaps most famously in the cases of Roe v. Wade, which made abortion a constitutional right, and Obergefell, which mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages. Or consider the 2012 Obamacare case, where the Supreme Court’s tortuous interpretation of the individual mandate as a tax—contrary to Obama’s own talk about it—allowed the controversial law to remain in place.

And already in the Trump presidency, we’ve seen the effect of activist judges: Trump’s executive order restricting travel from six Middle Eastern countries, done for national security reasons, has been blocked from implementation thanks to judges.

Watch the video listed below.

Ultimately, due to activist judges in the lower courts, it will likely be the Supreme Court that decides whether many of Trump’s policies are implemented—or blocked. That’s not a healthy sign for our nation—which should be governed by lawmakers, not judges—but it’s the sad reality of the current times.  

And while Gorsuch may be one of nine, he’s poised to have a big impact on the long-term future of our country.

In recent years, several Supreme Court cases have been decided by just one vote—including cases about gun rights, free speech, property rights, religious liberty, voting rights, and abortion, as documented in The Heritage Foundation’s “Supreme Consequences.” “To pull off a wildly successful Supreme Court confirmation in the face of unprecedented partisan opposition is hard enough. To do it starting only 10 days after taking office is exceptional,” Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network wrote in National Review.

Trump moved quickly and effectively to get Gorsuch nominated and confirmed. And now Gorsuch’s presence on the Supreme Court is encouraging to all Americans who want us to return to being a nation governed by elected officials, not rogue judges.

As Gorsuch himself put it, “It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people’s representatives.” Having a new Supreme Court justice with that philosophy will help our country, hopefully for decades to come.

Watch the video : (Copy and Paste) https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/851555178910064640

FCC Moves to End "Net Neutrality" : Free Markets Prevail

The roll back of progressive socialist regulations rammed down the throats of the population in the middle of the night is a no-brainer. When ever possible, the free market must prevail if success is to be obtain for individuals in a the larger society.

Government overreach and interference in the lives of individuals is the hallmark of progressive socialist liberalism, where the target for control is always the individual seeking success and prosperity by their own hand.

The progressives believe there cannot be success without the hand of government directing the process.

FCC Chairman Set to Roll Back Obama’s Overbearing Net Neutrality Rules
James Gattuso / @Jamesgattuso / April 27, 2017   

The narrative dominating the media this week has been the success or failure of President Donald Trump’s first 100 days. But at the Federal Communications Commission(FCC), there is no question that change is afoot.

On Wednesday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai revealed his most important change yet: eliminating the spectacularly nonsensical “net neutrality” rules imposed by President Barack Obama’s FCC in 2015.
The 2015 rules deemed internet service providers such as Verizon and Comcast to be “common carriers” under the 80-year-old Communications Act.

This allowed the FCC to subject those companies to meticulous FCC control over how they provide service—specifically, net neutrality rules requiring providers to treat all internet transmissions equally, even if the sender or consumer would prefer customized service. Not surprisingly, investment in broadband networks subsequently declined, and innovation—such as certain free data service plans—was threatened.

But Wednesday, the FCC chairman revealed plans to repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order and return to what he described as “the light-touch regulatory framework that served our nation so well.”
The repeal process is a political minefield, but the chairman’s success would be a significant victory for free enterprise. Innovation and consumer choice would be enhanced, as would high-speed access for millions more Americans.

As Pai said Wednesday:

It’s basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get. … Sure enough, infrastructure investment declined. … [d]omestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6 percent, or $3.6 billion … It is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the internet era.

The deregulation proposal is being released Thursday, and the public will be able to submit comments to the commission—unlike in 2015, when the FCC adopted the 313-page order without public review.

The plan is to vote at the FCC’s May meeting on adopting the notice of proposed rulemaking. Presuming that moves forward, the commission would vote at its September meeting to rescind the 2015 order. Whether this occurs on Day 99 or 101 of the Trump administration doesn’t make much difference. The FCC chairman’s proposal is a direct strike against the unparalleled regulatory overreach that ran rampant for the previous eight years. Bravo.