Trump Funds NASA And Proposed ''Space Force'' : Not Barrrack's Muslim Outreach

What a difference an election makes. When Barrrack said that he National Aeronautical and Space Administration(NASA) would be defunded and then use these funds for ''out reach to Muslins countries'', it became clear Barrrack had a different agenda for America military and space exploration.

But pay no mind to this as the progressive socialsit liberal democrats understand if we are attacked, it will be easy to blame the Republicans and then demand that the Republicans fix the problem democrats recreated. It works every time.

Only now the dynamics are different. The people of this great country have awaken to the criminals that are passing themselves off as the peoples representatives in our government. The have elected a solution and will do so again in November.

Never vote democrat! It is about national security. It is about freedom and liberty.

And the beat goes on for making America great again!

Done Right, Trump’s Space Force Would Put the US on Top

John Venable / June 21, 2018

President Donald Trump directed the Pentagon on Monday to create a sixth branch of the U.S. military—the fifth within the Department of Defense—to be known as the Space Force.

That direction may have surprised some, but evidence suggests his announcement caught neither the secretary of defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff unaware—and that Trump made the directive with the benefit of study.

The 2018 National Defense Authorization Act directed the deputy secretary of defense to conduct a review of the organizational and management structure of our nation’s space security components. The Department of Defense delivered an interim report to Congress on March 1.

Officials at the highest levels within the Pentagon reviewed the report before turning it over to Congress. And with the high military and political stakes riding on the report’s recommendations, you can bet Secretary of Defense James Mattis passed the findings on to his boss.

Two weeks after the report was delivered, the president suggested the idea of a Space Force in a speech at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in California. While some will claim the timing of his words as happenstance, the rationale for such skepticism is thin at best.

The final report’s specific recommendations may vary around the edges from those of the interim report, but experience suggests the main recommendations are unlikely to change significantly between now and when officials deliver the final version to Congress in August.

Upon receiving the Defense Department’s final report, Congress likely will move to pass legislation establishing the Space Force—legislation the president will sign.

With the administration’s decision seemingly in hand, our efforts need to shift from opposing the initiative to ensuring that implementation delivers more than another layer of bureaucracy. The Space Force needs to be built in a way that re-establishes the United States as the dominant force in this critical domain—not with mere presence, but as the world’s greatest space fighting force. And we have our work cut out for us.

Today, 60 organizations govern space command and control for the United States. Eleven are charged with oversight and eight with acquisition. Six others define the requirements for space systems. No single entity or individual oversees any of the three efforts or holds the reins for the lot.

Just three of those 60 organizations belong to the Air Force, and, while it would be relatively easy to consolidate those three into another organization and call it a Space Force, the move would just add another bureaucratic thread to the malaise that currently exists.

To make the Space Force an effective addition to the Department of Defense, we need to go big.

The Space Force must absorb the vast majority of those 60 space organizations, and it should be given the authorities and funding required to develop the means to fight and win in the domain of space.

Congress has already started the process with the latest draft of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. The legislation directs the secretary of defense to develop a policy for warfighting in space that doesn’t just involve resiliency, the ability to defend against an attack or identify the nation that launched it—but to defeat any adversary in space at all levels of conflict.

When this administration follows through by consolidating the Department of Defense’s space assets into a single service and then appropriating the funds required to manifest these capabilities, the Space Force will put the United States back in the lead of all other nations in this critical domain.

Immigration Is About Power : New democrat Voters by The Millions

It is about getting and keeping the power for control. 

Nothing else matters.

Any law fostered by democrats has to be seen as no more then political theater to gain an advantage over others. 

The progressive socialsit liberal democrats are and have never been serious about America and her needs for being a civil society of laws.

What the progressive socialist liberal democrats are all about is laying a base of perpetual voters that will permanently be available to make sure democrats will win all election now and in the future. 

democrats have been shown to be at the boarder ready to register immigrants as soon as the cross the boarder into our country.

That this will cause significant damage to our county's well being at all levels of society but this is of no concern as the 'ends justifies the means'. Remember, it's by any means necessary and they are serious. This not just a one time thing or a game. These people want to do us all harm. 

It's only about getting and keeping the power that they believe is a birth right for control of all outcomes in this country. If it means bringing violence to our streets like we are seeing now against person in opposition to the progressive democrats, they are more then willingly do it.

Again if we who believe in the rule of law as stated in our Constitution, it is imperative to never vote for democrats. They are not here to help our country survive and prosper, they are here to destroy it as founded. 

Democrats Have Zero Tolerance for Solutions to Illegal Immigration

David Harsanyi / @davidharsanyi / June 22, 2018

As soon as the Trump administration adopted a “zero tolerance” policy requiring law enforcement to prosecute all immigrants who crossed the border illegally, it became clear that officials weren’t prepared to deal with the crush of kids who would find themselves under their supervision. Nor were they able to implement the policy in a humane way.

Family separation is callous and ineffective, but its existence doesn’t excuse the ginned-up moral panic, the pious grandstanding, or the historically illiterate associations to Nazi death camps unleashed by its critics. Nor does it excuse the fact that Democrats have shown zero interest in dealing with the undermining problems that propel these situations.

“Why won’t the GOP stand up to Donald Trump?!” is the well-known refrain from those who lockstepped their way through the eight-year hard-left turn of Barack Obama. Yet every Republican member of the Senate claimed to support legislation to fix existing laws that separate children from parents who are caught crossing into the United States illegally even as the president defended it.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, despite criticism from the president, has proposed perhaps overly optimistic legislation expediting asylum claims by adding more immigration judges and prioritizing families to be processed first.

So maybe the House (also working on legislation) and the Senate won’t be able to come to an agreement. Or maybe Trump will veto the bill. We don’t know. Not that any of it is going to matter if Democrats block the legislation, which is what they were promising to do before even seeing it.

“There are so many obstacles to legislation, and when the president can do it with his own pen, it makes no sense,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is a co-sponsor of proposed Democratic legislation to supposedly fix the problem, stated. “Legislation is not the way to go here when it’s so easy for the president to sign it.”

Now, I realize Democrats have gotten used to the idea of a president ruling with a pen while concocting immigration law unilaterally. But even though Trump acquiesced to pressure and signed an executive order, the subsequent action will not be “easy.”

Democrats know that the administration could be stopped by the courts and that the long-standing Flores consent decree complicates efforts to enforce border laws and keep families together. They know that only legislation could allow both to happen. They’re more interested in returning to the status quo.

Someone should ask leading Democrats whether they believe that any immigrant illegally bringing children should be detained at the border for any reason whatsoever—because these Democrats, who ignore the moral cost associated with thousands of children wandering over the border, have yet to explain how we can possibly know whether these kids are going to be OK if we have no way of ensuring their parents’ compliance with a court.

Someone should ask Schumer whether he opposes the “child separation” policy or he opposes a “zero tolerance” policy on illegal immigration. Has any Democrat clarified why the latter position wouldn’t incentivize more migrants to bring children (sometimes their own and sometimes not) on the dangerous trek over the border rather than to ports of entry? There’s been a spike in the number of families and unaccompanied children at the border over the past five years. Claiming amnesty after apprehension is basically a get-in-free card.

Someone should ask Democrats what kind of undocumented immigrant they believe doesn’t deserve de facto asylum. I’m well aware that most of the people flowing in from Central America are escaping poverty and violence, and I’m highly sympathetic to their plight. But I assume migrants who properly ask for asylum are in the same situation—other than being punished for following rules.

I’m a pretty liberal guy on immigration—open to more asylum-seekers, bigger immigration, more temporary workers, etc. But I’m not a huge fan of chaos. And I suspect I’m not alone.

Yet we have Democrats and activists calling for the elimination of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We have a Democratic Party unwilling to make any compromise on the issue even when we’re faced with a surge of migrant children.

As Gabriel Malor pointed out in The Federalist this week, the proposed legislation co-sponsored by every Senate Democrat was so carelessly written that it would prevent “federal law enforcement agencies almost anywhere inside the United States from arresting and detaining criminals who are parents having nothing to do with unlawfully crossing the border and seeking asylum.”

It’s not healthy for the country or the people who come here seeking a better life to be thrown into a system that doesn’t work. Nor, as we are increasingly seeing in Europe, is it politically tenable to rely on emotionalism as a means of ignoring all law.

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

United Nations Is A Joke : Fire Arm Regulations Debated

More proof that the United Nations is actually just a forum for rogue nations that want a place to retire and feed off the hard work of others, living the good life that these tyrants and mass killers in some cases denied their own people.

The whole idea of a United Nations as a place to bring peace and order to troubled areas around the world has become a joke at least, and at the worst a place to steal and plunder the world's resources to gain an advantage over other nations.

This organization has become, if it ever was, a huge money pit designed to redistribute the world resources to those nations that are ready and willing to squander their own resource by leadership of those nations for personal gain. And which is a total waste of time and money especially for the worlds fall-guy, the United States.

I’m Sitting Through One of the UN’s Most Useless Conferences. Here’s What’s Happening.

Ted Bromund / @Bromund / June 23, 2018

For this week and the next, the United Nations is hosting a conference of its Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects—fortunately abbreviated as the PoA.

Like the U.N. Human Rights Council, the PoA is a classic U.N. institution: It’s a good idea in theory, but a terrible failure in practice.

The PoA, as its name implies, is supposed to focus on the illicit trade in small arms. That means less than it sounds, because part of the purpose of the PoA is to convince its member nations to make more things illegal. The result is that the PoA is never going to reach its goal: It is a self-licking ice cream cone.

If the U.N. and quite a lot of the nations here had their way, the PoA wouldn’t limit its focus on the illicit trade in small arms. It would just ban the private trade in firearms, period. Curiously, the word “illicit” tends to disappear from draft PoA documents. It’s reinserted only after the U.S. protests.

I’ve been attending PoA events for years, and sitting here watching the PoA now reminds me of playing bingo. Particular phrases come up over and over again, year after year—all you need is a card to check them off, and the restraint not to yell “bingo” in the conference room when you complete a row.

Almost every delegation mouths the same phrases: The process must be “transparent and inclusive.” The “special contributions of women and girls” must be acknowledged. The “synergies” between the PoA and things like the Arms Trade Treaty must be included. The need to control ammunition, 3-D printing, and modular firearms must be accepted.

All of this is balderdash. Most of the distinguished national representatives in the room do not know enough to make them worth including, transparently or not. If women, or indeed girls, have relevant expertise, it should of course be employed—but the idea that women have special insight into the issue is the basest kind of pandering.

The so-called “synergies”—as the U.S. delegation rightly pointed out on Wednesday—are never specified, and most likely do not exist. The real point of talking about them is to try to trap the U.S. into accepting the Arms Trade Treaty through the back door.

And then there is 3-D printing. As I write this (on Thursday), the U.S. is pushing back against the U.N.’s desire to treat 3-D printers as though they are guns. Much of the enthusiasm for this stems from the fact that, since almost no one in this room knows anything about firearms, it’s all too easy to convince them that 3-D printed guns are a pressing problem.

But this also reflects China’s long-standing enthusiasm for using the PoA to create a requirement for government licensing of 3-D printers.

The PoA is a tremendous forum if you want to focus on things that are not problems. But ironically, it also offers valuable insight into the actual problem behind the illicit arms trade. As the International Committee of the Red Cross put it on Wednesday, the basic issue is the “gap between political commitments and actions.” In other words, governments talk a good game, but they don’t act.

If all the governments here just did what they have agreed to do, the illicit arms trade would be radically smaller.

In a way, it’s sad to hear the government of Ghana admit that it does not even have laws that allow the tracing of crime guns—and Ghana is far from the worst place in the world. The chasm between the comfortable U.N. and the world’s dirty realities is vast beyond imagining.

Bluntly, most of the governments represented in this room are incompetent, and quite a few of the remainder are dictatorships. As a result, the PoA is never going to achieve much. And that’s not just my view: Every independent assessment of the PoA has concluded the same thing. In 2008, even the U.N. secretary-general stated that the PoA’s results were not “substantive.”

But condemning most of the U.N.’s membership in detail is one thing the U.N., or its membership, will never do. They therefore prefer to add new commitments—like regulating 3-D printing—than look honestly at their failure to implement the old ones. After all, new commitments are free. Keeping old ones requires a lot of work which most governments aren’t willing, or able, to do.

To its enormous credit, the U.S. delegation—which has intervened frequently and well—made this point forcefully on the PoA’s first day, stating that the U.S. disagrees with the apparent belief of many states that not adopting new commitments is a sign of failure.

The PoA makes, at best, only a minor contribution to controlling the illicit arms trade. At worst, it could well become sinister. With luck, and continued good work by the U.S., the PoA will remain what it is today: a collection of commitments that too few nations uphold, but which pose no serious threat to the United States and to rights protected under the Constitution.

Barrrack's ''Organizing for America'' : Subverison And Insurection

Did Krauthammer actually write this? I don't know. This article seems a little different in style and substance then what Charles Krauthammer would have written to explain Barrrack Ogbjma and what his ''transformation'' religious jihad for changing American civil society.

But non-the-less, it is important to believe Barrrack and his minions will do what ever it takes to destroy our country, ''by any means necessary'' as it was founded and then try and rebuild it with the progressive socialist liberal ideology of an all powerful centralized government that will be all things to all people.

This is who he was from the very beginnings of his life on his fathers knee. His father was an avoid communist that hated the government in Kenya and else where that over saw all life with a British influence. Little wonder why Barrrack has no time for the British.

Little wonder as well why he hates any form of individual liberty and the freedom to chose. Little wonder why his political leanings and actions while president in this county explain why his ideology of total power in the hands of a select few so closely resembles that of Cuba, Venezuela and Iran.

And now as the true is known, why he is now attacking our country's very Constitution to make changes to it that resemble those countries that have total control of the population even if it means using violence, especially with violence. 

Know this, what Barrrack is doing is straight out of the hand book of Saul Alinsky, ''Rules for Radials'', the revolutionary from the past. Then to Barrrack's friend and confidant of the 60's radical community organizer and domestic terrorist charged with killing a police officer, Bill Ayers, now a professor at the university of Chicago was and is a confidant for bringing chaos and conflict to our civil society.

Remember Ayers famous words as he escaped criminal prosecution for murder on a technicality, ''What great county, guilty as hell but free as a bird''.

It does appear from recent video showing violent attacks on individuals that are members of the opposition to Barrrack's 'new wave' ideology of progressive liberal socialism is just the beginning of efforts to over-throw a legitimately elected government.

This is tyranny. Barrrack and his team are instigating others to perform violent acts against citizens. This is criminal. This is insurrection. This subversion. This is sedition. This is the real Barrrack Ogbjma.

Stay awake and make sure you never vote democrat. Our country depends on common sense civility and  the rule of law as sent down by our Constitution to survive. Not violence by those that hate the rule of law.

The Enemy Amongst Us!! By Charles Krauthammer,

March 6 ,2018  An article from the New York Post:

I do not understand how living in a country with its democracy established over 200 years ago, and now, for the first time in history, suddenly we have one of our former presidents set up a group called “Organizing for Action” (OFA).

OFA is 30,000+ strong and working to disrupt everything that our current president’s administration is trying to do. This organization goes against our Democracy, and it is an operation that will destroy our way of governing. It goes against our Constitution, our laws, and the processes established over 200 years ago. If it is allowed to proceed then we will be living in chaos very much like third world countries are run. What good is it to have an established government if it is not going to be respected and allowed to follow our laws?

If you had an army some 30,000 strong and a court system stacked over the decades with judges who would allow you to break the laws, how much damage could you do to a country? We are about to find out in America!

Our ex-president said he was going to stay involved through community organizing and speak out on the issues and that appears to be one post-administration promise he intends to keep. He has moved many of his administration’s top dogs over to Organizing for Action.

OFA is behind the strategic and tactical implementation of the resistance to the Trump Administration that we are seeing across America, and politically active courts are providing the leverage for this revolution.

OFA is dedicated to organizing communities for “progressive” change... Its issues are gun control, socialist healthcare, abortion, sexual equality, climate change, and of course, immigration reform.

OFA members were propped up by the ex-president’s message from the shadows: “Organizing is the building block of everything great we have accomplished Organizers around the country are fighting for change in their communities and OFA is one of the groups on the front lines. Commit to this work in 2017 and beyond.” OFA’s website says it obtained its “digital” assets from the ex-president’s re-election effort and that he inspired the movement. In short, it is the shadow government organization aimed at resisting and tearing down the Constitutional Republic we know as AMERICA.

Paul Sperry, writing for the New York Post, says, “The OFA will fight President Donald Trump at every turn of his presidency and the ex-president will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.”  Sperry writes that, “The ex-president is setting up a shadow government to sabotage the Trump administration through a network of non-profits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide.

The OFA IRS filings, according to Sperry, indicate that the OFA has 32,525 (and growing) volunteers nationwide. 

The ex-president and his ‘wife’ will oversee the operationfrom their home / office in Washington DC.

Think about how this works. For example: Trump issues an immigration executive order; the OFA signals for protests and statements from pro-immigrant groups; the ACLU lawyers file lawsuits in jurisdictions where activist judges obstruct the laws; volunteers are called to protest at airports and Congressional town hall meetings; the leftist media springs to action in support of these activities; the twitter sphere lights up with social media; and violence follows. 

All of this happens from the ex-president’s signal that he is heartened by the protests.

If Barack Obama did not do enough to destroy this country in the 8 years he was in office, it appears his future plans are to destroy the foundation on which this country has operated on for the last 241 years.
If this does not scare you, then we are in worse trouble than you know. So, do your part.. You have read it, so at least pass this on so others will know what we are up against. We are losing our country and we are so compliant. We are becoming a “PERFECT TARGET” for our enemy!

Editor’s comments: Krauthammer is about the best and brightest journalist and political analyst we have, in my opinion. His words of warning in the below message should be taken seriously and spread throughout the country so as many of our citizens as possible are made aware of what is happening right under our noses!

SPLC democrats Exposed : Hating America As Founded

Wonder no longer why the SPLC is totally ethically and morally corrupt. They are running scared as more people are looking for a place to find positive information for their lives.  The people no longer believe the progressive socialists are legitimate but just domestic criminals that seek to do us all harm.

The SPLC is just another arm of the progressive socialsit liberal democrat conglomerate of sinister and sadistic organizations that have aligned themselves to take control of the American civil society that depends on individual freedom and liberty for finding a life of peace and prosperity. 

The Southern Poverty Law Center(SPLC) wants to destroy American as it was founded. They are depraved and immoral, based on malfeasance and hypocrisy, disciples of deceit trotting out a tortured interpretation of what can only be understood as unscrupulously criminal activity and demands designed to destroy our Constitution and the very fabric of American freedom to chose.

Obviously they are part and partial of the progressive socialsit liberal democrat ideology that seeks domination of all political thought and activity through a debauchery of misinformation and out right lies to gain an advantage. There are no limits to what they will say or do to our society.

Know this, they are all democrats. Never vote for democrats as our very existence depends on the general public understanding who and what they are and what they intend for our civil society.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Smear Campaign Against PragerU

Dennis Prager / @DennisPrager / June 19, 2018

“Antifa” is to violence what the Southern Poverty Law Center is to words. In short, it is a hate group on the left.

The SPLC smears individuals and groups it differs with by labeling them as some form of “hater”: “racist,” “white supremacist,” “extremist,” and the like. That it is cited and even relied upon by The New York Times, Facebook, Amazon, Google, CNN, and others, and that Apple gave the organization a million dollars, is testimony to the moral state of mainstream media and corporate culture in America today.

Were the SPLC not quoted and used as a source, there would be no reason to pay it any attention. All the SPLC does is politicize, and thereby trivialize, the fight against racism and other evils.

Any organization that labels Ayaan Hirsi Ali—the extraordinary Somali-American woman who devotes her life to fighting for oppressed women, especially in the Islamic world—an “extremist,” as the SPLC has done, is not a moral organization. No wonder it just agreed to pay Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz $3.4 million and issued a retraction for smearing him as an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

This kind of behavior should surprise no one. Since Stalin labeled Trotsky, the ideological leader of Soviet communism, a “fascist,” the left (not liberals, to whom the left is as opposed as it is conservatives) has libeled its opponents. Without lying about its opponents, there would be no left.

Now the SPLC has placed an article about PragerU on its “Hatewatch” blog. It never actually accuses PragerU of “hate” because even it can’t substantiate such a charge. In over 300 videos, it could not find a single sentence countenancing hate or bigotry, so it simply describes two articles by outsiders about PragerU, knowing the dirty work will be accomplished via implication.

The article is about two PragerU critics, Kevin M. Kruse, a Princeton University history professor who sought to rebut a PragerU video in a Twitter thread, and a self-described sociologist named Francesca Tripodi, who wrote an article examining PragerU’s reach.

Kruse tweeted a series of disagreements with a PragerU video by former Princeton University and Vanderbilt University professor Carol Swain, a black scholar, on the subject of the Republican Party and the “Southern Strategy.” Now, Kruse may be right, and Swain may be wrong. But that has nothing to do with hate. Nor does Kruse imply that it does. So, the SPLC citation of Kruse is just deceitful.

The SPLC article goes on to charge that “more than a few” PragerU videos “function as dog whistles to the extreme right.” And how does PragerU blow these “dog whistles”? The article uses Tripodi to make its case.

Here is the essence of her argument, as described by the SPLC: “Tripodi says she discovered several elements tied to PragerU’s presenters and its online marketing that paint the brief videos watched more than a billion times in a troublesome light.”

And what are those “several elements?” “To start with,” the article says, “when one visits the PragerU channel on YouTube, there is a column of ‘Related Channels’ with links to other outlets PragerU’s audience may find interesting: Fox News seems to be a no-brainer, as does The Daily Wire, given its founder Ben Shapiro’s relationship as a presenter for PragerU. But alongside those you also can find the channel of Stefan Molyneux, an extremist who espouses pseudo-scientific ‘race realism’ propaganda.

“‘[PragerU] … is very blatantly algorithmically connected’ to the extreme right content found on YouTube, Tripodi explains.”

Only a very careful reader will discern that PragerU has never had any connection whatsoever to Molyneux or any “extreme right content.” All Tripodi and the SPLC could write is that Google has “algorithmically connected” PragerU to such content. Needless to say, PragerU has no power over how Google algorithmically connects anything.

Then the SPLC writes, “More troubling, Tripodi discovered, are the connections some PragerU presenters have with white nationalist thinkers.” Again, only a very careful reader will realize PragerU has no connections whatsoever to white nationalist thinkers. Rather, “some PragerU presenters” do.

And who might they be?

Tripodi and the SPLC give one example: Dave Rubin. Rubin made a video for PragerU titled “Why I Left the Left.” He is a very popular liberal video podcaster, and the fact that he is a gay Jewish liberal who left the left disturbs the SPLC. Now, do you know any gay Jewish liberals who support white nationalists? I doubt it.

So, on what grounds is Rubin smeared in this way? Not because of any views he espouses but because he has interviewed the aforementioned Molyneux.

As it happens, I differ with some of the admittedly little I have seen of Molyneux’s views (for example, I believe the entire race and IQ issue is utterly pointless and, on occasion, racist). But how does the fact that one PragerU presenter interviewed someone he disagrees with in any way impugn him—let alone PragerU?

Of course, it doesn’t. But that doesn’t stop the SPLC hate site from drawing such tenuous “connections” to smear fine people.

Would George Will, Bret Stephens, Charles Krauthammer—all Pulitzer Prize winners—Alan Dershowitz (a lifelong Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter), Arthur Brooks, Jonah Goldberg, Bjorn Lomborg, UCLA psychiatrist Dr. Stephen Marmer, former White House press secretary Dana Perino, and Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (one of the most prolific living writers on Judaism), to name just some of our presenters, participate in a white supremacist endeavor? The implication is absurd—and libelous.

In addition to videos on current political issues, history, and economics, PragerU brings goodness and kindness into millions of people’s lives. It produces videos on forgiveness, refraining from gossip, raising grateful and kind children, remaining attracted to one’s spouse, God and suffering, happiness and the importance of gratitude, along with many other life-enhancing subjects. And these have been viewed by tens of millions of people—most of them under age 35.

On any given day, PragerU increases goodness and kindness on Earth while the Southern Poverty Law Center increases anger and resentment.

That’s why the SPLC hates PragerU. The bad hate the good. It’s a rule of life.

The FBI In The Shadows : Progressive Liberals Run the Show

This is just one more agency that has been completely compromise by the Ogbjma legacy. How cool is this, the premier law enforcement agency in the world is dominated by progressive socialist liberals democrats that ''intend'' to do us all harm.

It has been shown in recent revelations the FBI is corrupt, corrupted by individuals that believe they are superior in intellect and motivation. And worst of all, the corruption not just by it's leadership, the corruption is from top to bottom.

Is it totally infested with progressive liberalism as Ogbjam's legacy to ''transform'', politically weaponize all government departments and agencies as he had intended? No, it isn't. But there are significant numbers of individuals that have been installed in key positions over the last two decades that have the correct mind set, willing to do the bidding of leadership when called on on to do so.

The only conclusion that one can have given what has transpired in congressional oversight findings and leaks to members of the Conservative press concerning just how bad the agency has been compromised, one can only believe The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI is now an enemy of the people. They ''intend'' to do us and our Constitution harm.

And knowing that it was progressive leftist democrats that made this happen, why would anyone ever vote democrat again. Don't do it! It's about our individual freedom and national security!

The FBI is now a working subsidiary of the democrats collective ideology?

OgbjmaCare's Fix : HCCP's Proposal That Will Work

OgbjmaCare was and is a scheme to control all options on health care and therefore take control of the populations available net work for present and future individual and family well being. 'We will  take care of you and your family. The government is here to help'.

In the now popular lingo, the ''intent'' was and is control.  Lest we forget Ogbjma's righthand man in directing and implementing OgbjmaCare,  Johnathan Gruber, when he stated, off the cuff he had to lie to the public as to what he and his leadership ''intended'', total control of heath care in America as dictated by government bureaucrats. He knew the general public would never accept OgbjmaCare as written.

So Gruber believed, as did his betters at the levers of power, the general public would accept the lie and move on into what was really ''intended'' when Gruber and Ogbjma knew the system of OgbjmaCare would fail, the result, as ''intended'' would be ''single payer'' health care.  All heath care run by Washington bureaucrats.

Luckily for us it didn't work out that way. But the huge struggle to right the wrongs of Ogbjma and his ''transformation'' religious jihad for changing America didn't work as he ''intended''.

Answering Criticisms of the Conservative Health Care Consensus Plan

Doug Badger / @Dougsbriefcase / June 21, 2018

The Center for American Progress recently released a study criticizing a Health Policy Consensus Group proposal to reduce premiums and increase choices for the millions of families and small businesses who are forced to choose between remaining uninsured or buying expensive Obamacare policies.

The proposal, dubbed the Health Care Choices Proposal, would replace Obamacare individual entitlements with grants to states. States would be required to use their federal grants to establish programs that subsidize premiums for low-income residents and that reduce premiums by assuring that the sick receive the assistance they need without saddling the healthy with unaffordable premiums.

CAP’s seven-page critique of the proposal is a gumbo of falsehoods, misrepresentations, questionable assumptions, and contrived data that misrepresent both the content and the effect of the Health Care Choices Proposal.

Here is a list of the CAP study’s greatest hits:

“Millions of Americans would lose health coverage.”

To the contrary. By reducing premiums, the Health Care Choices Proposal would make it possible for many who have been priced out of the individual and small group insurance markets to find affordable insurance.

“Protections for pre-existing conditions would be decimated.”

The Health Care Choices Proposal retains current law on coverage of pre-existing conditions, along with provisions that ban insurers from refusing coverage or charging higher premiums on the basis of an applicant’s health status. This feature, ironically, has drawn criticism by some on the right who would like to see the pre-existing condition protections removed.

“Costs would increase for lower-income, older, and sick Americans.”

The Health Care Choices Proposal would require states to use a portion of their federal allotment for risk mitigation. These are mechanisms designed to subsidize care for those in poor health without placing excessive burdens on the healthy. This and related provisions would help repair much of the damage that Obamacare has inflicted on state insurance markets.

“Massive disruption would occur, causing insurers to drop out of marketplaces.”

That is a spot-on description of what Obamacare has done to insurance markets, something the Health Care Choices Proposal aims to reverse. Insurers have fled the market, leaving most counties with just one insurance company and most of the rest with two or three insurers. The Health Care Choices Proposal would help reverse this dynamic.

The proposal would repeal the Obamacare provision that “prohibit[s] insurance companies from imposing lifetime and annual limits on all essential benefits.”

Wrong again. The Health Care Choices Proposal does not repeal these regulations, which is something to which some conservative critics have objected. At least they have their facts right.

It would “repeal the requirement for a single risk pool, [which] would be fractured into two risk pools—one for unregulated plans and one for [Affordable Care Act] plans.”

Here, CAP gets it at least partially right. States would no longer have to require insurers to group everyone in the individual market into the same risk pool. The result of that, however, is not to divide the market between regulated and unregulated plans. Rather, it allows the state to employ risk mitigation programs that provide affordable coverage for the sick without gouging the healthy.

In recent years, several states have obtained waivers that allow them to divert federal Obamacare payments to insurance companies into state-run risk mitigation programs. These programs typically require states to obtain a waiver from Obamacare’s single risk pool requirement. Alaska provides one example. Its program resulted in lower premiums for everyone in its individual market, whether sick or healthy.

“Premium surcharges … would skyrocket.”

CAP has produced a table in which it estimates the amount of “surcharges” 40-year-olds would pay if they had certain medical conditions like diabetes, asthma, or cancer. The data are fictional since the Health Care Choices Proposal does not permit medical underwriting.

“The initial cut to ACA funding for health care coverage could be 20 percent.”

The report attributes this whopper to “a leaked outline that was verified by reporters.” For the record, the “leaked outline” to which the CAP study refers is not the Health Care Choices Proposal. The Health Policy Consensus Group avoided recommending funding levels or proposing allocation formulas. Instead, it focused exclusively on designing policies that would allow states to reverse Obamacare’s effects on premiums and choices.

While we believe that a program of grants to states will work more efficiently than current law, a 20 percent cut in the first year, growing (according to CAP) to 31 percent in 2028, would be excessive, not to mention politically nonviable. Since CAP erroneously assumes these cuts, all of the fiscal implications that follow from this assumption are implausible and contrived.

“The plan would transfer tax credits to the wealthy.”

The Health Care Choices Proposal would expand access to health savings accounts, which, CAP alleges, “function as tax shelters for higher-income people.”

Let’s begin by understanding what CAP means by “wealthy” and “higher-income people.” Median household income for those with health savings accounts is just over $57,000, and two-thirds of account holders have incomes less than $75,000. Obamacare has harmed millions of families in those income ranges.

The average family deductible for a bronze plan is more than $12,000. The out-of-pocket limit for covered, in-network spending is nearly $14,000. Yet the maximum amount a family can contribute to a health savings account is less than $7,000.

Meanwhile, most Obamacare policies don’t qualify for health savings accounts because their cost-sharing is too burdensome to comply with federal tax law. Households awash in wealth from their $57,000 annual salaries deserve some relief. Health savings account expansion would provide it.

“The block grant structure would radically politicize health care funding.”

Obamacare politicized health care financing and destroyed health insurance markets in the bargain. Repairing that damage necessarily requires action by the political branches of government.

The Health Care Choices Proposal would help millions who are consigned to Obamacare’s junk insurance policies. Those policies come at a high price, impose burdensome cost-sharing requirements, and only pay for care provided by doctors and hospitals in very narrow provider networks.

“Essential health benefits” are covered on paper, but not in reality, as more consumers are forced to shell out thousands or tens of thousands for care from non-network providers—spending that doesn’t count against their deductibles or out-of-pocket limits.

The Health Policy Consensus Group believes this is unacceptable and has made recommendations to alleviate Obamacare’s damage.

The IG Report : No Bias Is Found? Like Hillary?

IG report - explaining nothing to see here. No bias intended. Remember, Hillary never intended to be a criminal, it's just kinda worked out that way.  What just happened that is different then everything that has happened before?

what is different now to make the Inspector General decide political bias had nothing to do with the criminal activity in the FBI, the DOJ and now the State Department.

We all have to understand something that is very important in this discussion on political criminal activity in our government. And it's not just in these afore mention departments and agencies, it's rampant though out the government and from top to bottom. The infestation is total.

Think abut this, how is it that after 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Ogbjma and his wingman Holder, probably Bush as well, that the progressive liberal democrats didn't use this time in power to align those agencies with progressive agents in the ranks ready and willing to do the bidding of their leadership?

The Russian Probe Is Dead : Now It's About the Children

Republicans are always ready and willing to take a knee rather then

stand and fight on principle.

It is all about the children. The sad part is the progressive liberal democrats just mean enough and smart enough to understand the Republicans are not fighters for what they believe.

When the democrats roll out the ''child'' agenda card, the Republicans reel in fear at the thought of rebutting that agenda because the vicious amoral socialist press will demand why  Republicans hate children?

dah! The main stream progressive liberal media will say this no matter what the Republican say or do. And why not as it works every time it's used.

Republican leadership is pathetic and soulless. To many years of folding their cards before the end of the game. It's easier to 'go along to get along'.

The progressive liberal democrats know this all to well and they can easily beat the Republicans into submission.