It can be argued that Attorney General Jeff Sessions should not have recused himself from the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 General Election. Meeting with a Russian ambassador in a social capacity as a sitting US Senator is not improper. That said, Mr. Sessions' foot-dragging on all things Clinton is eyebrow-raising.
While some would spin it that Sessions should refrain from going after the Clintons and the DNC in an effort to avoid an onslaught of Democrat and Progressive charges of political persecution, it is clear to even the deaf, dumb and blind that the Clintons and the DNC have done things worthy of investigation.
Chief among the acts that should be investigated are the many instances of foreign governments -- and entities acting on behalf of foreign government -- donating to The Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton's time as US Secretary of State. The "coincidences" of favorable determinations by the State Dept. that occurred in proximity to "donations" to The Clinton Foundation are more than worthy of investigation.
Almost as important -- and perhaps even more so -- is the issue of Hillary Clinton having housed, received and transmitted classified information on an unauthorized private email server. Since we now know that the DNC and Clinton Campaign email servers were hacked (via Wikileaks disclosures), we simply must assume that Clintons unsecured, unauthorized, private email server was also compromised. This is -- and always was -- a very big deal. That's why the country gasped in horror when James Comey let Clinton off the hook.
Another item worthy of investigation are the meetings between the Clinton Campaign and the embassy staff from Ukraine; meetings confirmed to have been about colluding to influence the 2016 General Election.
There are so many questionable actions that have been executed by the Clintons over the years one would have trouble tallying them up. So, many of us commiserate with President Trump on this issue. When, Mr. Sessions, will we see serious and honest -- non-political -- investigations into these most serious of questionable acts at the hands of the Clintons?
The biggest lie being told about Obamacare is that it provides healthcare to people. It does not. It mandates health insurance coverage for all, but it doesn't have anything to do with healthcare. In fact, Obamacare makes it harder to even see a physician.
So, because this is the case, what opposition to the repeal of Obamacare really achieves is protection for the health insurance companies; companies that made significant profits because of Obamacare.
Not only is everyone in the country mandated to purchase health insurance in one form or another, the federal government is subsidizing the insurance companies' costs as well. You really would have to be employing a spendthrift business model not to glean profits from such a model.
Additionally, with more people having health insurance -- and no influx of new doctors -- the wait to see a physician because of the influx of patients to the doctor to patient ratio increases dramatically. In some instances, people are waiting up to 24 days to see a doctor after making an appointment.
So, while health insurance costs go up for everyone who actually pays for his or her own insurance, and the "newly insured" get their premiums paid by the Federal government, access to healthcare has diminished. The only winner in all of this is the health insurance companies, who are seeing massive profits from the citizenry being forces -- under penalty of law -- to purchase a private sector product.
There is a reason Democrats and Progressives like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Chuckie Schumer held the creation of Obamacare so close to the vest. They were colluding with their big donor health insurance companies to create windfall profits for their corporations.
Now how do you feel about your Senator or Representative opposing the repeal of Obamacare?
This is where common sense meets special interest politics. A proposed bill in the State of Massachusetts that would outlaw sex between teachers and students has yet to be endorsed by the state teachers’ union six months on. The language is clear and concise, yet the Massachusetts Teachers Association, 110,000 members strong, said it was still reviewing the measure.
The chief question that should come up in everyone's mind, especially the minds of parents of students in Massachusetts, is what is there to review?
The bill, outlaws teacher-student sex, sexual relations between a student and other adults employed by a school district -- salaried, volunteer or contract basis, and covers independent schools and youth organizations. Adults found guilty of violating the law would face a maximum jail term of five years and/or a $10,000 fine.
So, again, what is to "review" for six months? The union -- and their reviewing lawyers -- either have put the review on the "not so important" pile, or are attempting to find a way to massage the bill's language to protect teachers who do prey on their students. Both are incredibly unacceptable.
While good teachers should have close relationships with their students, crossing the line into sexual relationships is the definition of what it means to be a sexual predator. Those in positions of authority have an obligation protect their charges, not prey on them. Honestly, it is sad a law even needs to be on the books outlawing this activity.
Needless to say, next time a teachers' union gets behind a political candidate, we should all remember this point in time, especially in Massachusetts.
The idea that Democrats and Progressives will ever cooperate to rectify the mess they created in Obamacare is laughable. Truth is, they have no reason to do anything as long as Republicans remain impotent on coalescing to affect a change. That doesn't seem likely at this point.
The only way to force Democrats to the negotiating table on healthcare -- and on any other matter -- is by abandoning the "omnibus" approach and doing first things first. Republicans in the House and the Senate have to repeal Obamacare as a piece of stand-alone legislation with the political promise that they will negotiate a parachute for those adversely affected.
With Obamacare repealed - and the promise to negotiate a no-hurt parachute for those affected on the table -- inaction by the Democrats and Progressives becomes a death-knell come the mid-terms.
If Republicans keep their original promise to repeal Obamacare, then there is a track record of keeping promises that will allow the politically spineless in the Republican Party and the Democrats to believe their will be a negotiated parachute out of the Obamacare wasteland for those who already face a crushing exit, one way or another.
Congressional Republicans must act on a stand-alone repeal of Obamacare immediately. Any Republican -- from any state -- who does not go along with this is in two-faced defiance to what they ran for election on, and in defiance of the primary GOP platform plank in the 2016 General Election. They should be recalled immediately!
Contact your Reps and Senators now and demand they repeal Obamacare as a stand alone piece of legislation. If you live in Maine or West Virginia this contact is vital!
The Republican Party begged for the chance to take power so that they could "repeal Obamacare." They asked for both houses of Congress and the Oval Office and the American voters delivered each. Now they are failing the American people by reneging on their promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the chief promise that brought them to power.
Let's all remember that the campaign promises, made by each and every Republican, were to "repeal" Obamacare. Only when it became politically opportune did those promises morph into "repeal and replace," rhetoric meant to cater to the wobbly middle during a General Election cycle.
And just like that, Republicans, as they always do, fell into the Democrat/Progressive trap of a behemoth legislation. They fall into it all the time, be it legislation about immigration (the marriage of border security and immigration reform) or taxes (the marriage of tax reform to entitlement spending). They have created the illusion that the repeal of Obamacare must be in tandem with a replacement to the government entitlement program, and chicken sh*t Republicans -- like Susan Collins (R-ME), and Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) -- are buying it.
Democrats will never -- never -- come to the negotiating table on the issue of healthcare if they don't have a reason. They will allow Republicans to spin their wheels with a replacement bill only to watch them end in failure.
The only way to force Democrats to the table is to repeal Obamacare as a stand alone measure. That done, Republicans must win the messaging war to force the narrative that it is Democrats who refuse to come to the table to help those disenfranchised by the failed Obamacare experience. Then -- and only then -- will Democrats enjoin in ingenuous negotiations and debate.
Make no mistake. The only avenue here is to repeal Obamacare as a stand alone move. Then the issue of what to do can be addressed sand the political bullsh*t. If Republicans -- are you hearing me Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan -- do not simply repeal this law, the GOP is going to get crushed in the mid-terms and the American people will be stuck with socialized medicine for all time.
Former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice will take the hot seat before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Tuesday to discuss the unmasking of US citizens in in intelligence gathering related to the 2016 election. If anyone thinks any damning evidence will come out of this they really should stop chewing gum when they walk.
While the questions will be relevant during her grilling (at least from Republicans -- Democrats will execute the obligatory interference and deflection routine), can anyone expect a serial liar to answer any of the questions truthfully?
Because everyone on the planet -- including Rice, herself -- knows that the answer to the above question is "no," why are we wasting taxpayer money on this hearing at all? Why not just let the Justice Department initiate an official investigation and acquire evidence in a chain that can be used in a prosecution should that be the logical next step?
This is the problem with politicians. In order to get "face time" with the media so that their constituents believe they actually do something, they have to have these useless "investigative" committees that showboat with witnesses that can only be categorized as hostile and partisan.
To better serve the people -- and so that they stop wasting taxpayer dollars -- how about they conduct cursory investigations using staff investigators and if they believe their are nefarious acts taking place the committee recommends/requests to the DoJ that a format criminal investigation be executed.
This streamlines the process and retards -- or at least reduces -- the never-ending flow of caustic partisan bullsh*t showboating that politicians have become so want to do.
To listen to Democrats and their mainstream media puppets explain it, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin met in the "cone of silence" to systemically corrupt and gerrymander the 2016 General Election to Trump's advantage. The narrative is bullsh*t, but that's what they would have you believe.
Why do I know it's BS? Because after months of investigations -- both governmental and not, as well as a full-blown effort by the media to uncover anything that could serve as evidence of illegal activity, well, as they would say in Godfellas, "they got nothin'."
This is why Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, had to very subtlety manipulate the very basis of the complaint Democrats have been making.
“I don't want to see us continue to lower the bar here and say the only question is whether this is illegal. This was unethical," Schiff said Tuesday. "It was, I think, a violation of the oaths of citizenship to willingly solicit, receive, encourage foreign intervention in our elections.”
Did you catch that? He doesn't want to "lower the bar" by making the issue exclusively about illegality. This is after Democrats, like Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, and the usual caustically partisan Progressives, have insisted that illegal collusion took place. They claim that Donald Trump committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" in his "collusion" to the point of warranting impeachment!
But suddenly, because no evidence could be unearthed to prove otherwise, this matter isn't about the subject of illegality. Now, as Schiff points out, it is about "ethics."
I didn't know that a violation of ethics was the criteria for impeachment or imprisonment. If "ethics" was the litmus test then Barack Obama should have been impeached ten-fold, and Hillary Clinton would have to be secured like Hannibal Lecter to keep her away from all things government.
This serves as a perfect example of one important thing. It shows how Progressives redefine things in order to support their narratives, no matter how far the stretch and no matter how beyond the lines of legitimacy it needs to go.
Democrats are going to try to ride the Russian collusion story into the mid-term elections. Schiff's overt shift in language proves this out. It's pathetic, but it's what politically partisan Democrats and Progressives do when..."they got nothin'."
Depending on who wins an given election, one party or the other wails about voter fraud. Given the reality of Motor Voter laws and many Blue States' policies of granting drivers licenses to non-citizens, the protestations coming out of the political Right have far more merit than those of the Left.
To argue the above point is to engage in an age-old "conversation." But there is no good reason -- none whatsoever -- for anyone, be they federally or locally elected officials, to obstruct an effort to make our voter rolls completely transparent.
The right to vote in the United States is reserved, by law, to citizens. People here on visas of any kind, and those here illegally, have no right to vote. Therefore, any attempt to systematically obstruct any effort to guard the election process really should be viewed as an attempt to overthrow the US Government.
Think about it. If a political party is knowingly moving policy, regulations and legislation that would necessarily create loopholes for non-citizens to vote, then they are purposely subverting the process in an attempt to create a corrupted election result for political gain. How is that not robbing the American people of a legitimately elected representative government? How is that not an act of overthrowing our legitimate government; of treason?
Just as with Voter ID laws, political hacks always talk about the sanctity of the ballot, one man one vote, etc. But they never -- ever -- do anything to protect those things. That's because their protestations are insincere; they are full of it.
I have my issues with the sitting President on some things, but ballot integrity and crushing voter fraud is not one of them. Perhaps legislation that would refuse to certify their electoral college electors would send a message. When no Blue States could seat their electors, well...
If there was an award for busy-body of the moment, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio would be a shoe in; he would have a lot of competition, but I think he would take it this time around.
De Blasio abandoned his duties as Mayor of New York City to jet off to Germany to, of all things join G-20 meeting protesters, including anarchists and Marxists. He did this just a day after an NYPD cop was assassinated in the Bronx.
De Blasio will also be missing the graduation of 524 new NYPD officers while in Germany where he will also be a featured speaker at a rally titled, "Hamburg Shows Attitude."
So, while New York City deals with myriad crisis -- including never-ending economic woes and the assassinations of police officers, de Blasio is playing the international jet-setting globalist politician. How does this serve the people of New York City? Short answer: It doesn't. It fuels his Progressive ego and that's about it.
It is the job -- the duty -- of a big city mayor (or a small town mayor) to act as the figurehead at any funeral of a police officer killed in the line of duty. De Blasio will miss the funeral of NYPD Officer Miosotis Familia because he is attending a G-20 protest that has nothing to do with the job to which he was elected; it serves no purpose where New York City id concerned.
The bottom line here is something that most people know already. Bill de Blasio is a douche-bag. In fact, now he's even more of one.
One of the tactics Progressives use in their win-at-all-cost war against freedom and sovereignty is redefinition. They are routinely redefining words and phrases so that they have more force to their ideological objectives. An excellent example of this comes to us in the subject of "racism."
Today, most on the Left believe that racism -- both the term and the act -- excludes the White demographic. If you are Black, Asian, American Indian, Indian, Hispanic, etc. you can be the victim of racism. If you are White you cannot.
Yet, the definition of racism is: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
That definition doesn't exclude the White demographic. It is clear. If you view a person in a derogatory manner because of the color of his/her skin you are practicing racism. If you are elevating your race over any or all others, you are practicing racism.
So, that understood, how is the Black Lives Matter cult not a racist organization? How is the modern day NAACP not a racist organization. And why isn't the Congressional Black Caucus considered a racist organization? Each of these organization either attempts to elevate the Black demographic, or marginalize the White demographic. That is the epitome of the definition of racism.
And what of the canard of "White privilege"? Does the advancement of that false narrative not attempt to portray one racial demographic as being above all others?
The reason these groups can get away with these acts is because Progressives, who control the media and the education system, have "massaged" the definition of racism.
ThoughtCo.com explains it thusly: "[I]n response to living in a racially stratified society, people of color sometimes complain about whites. Typically, such complaints serve as coping mechanisms to withstand racism rather than as anti-white bias. Even when minorities are actually prejudiced against whites, they lack the institutional power to adversely affect Whites' lives."
In a nutshell, Blacks (or any other non-White demographic, for that matter) can't be racist, and if they seem to be racist it's the fault of the White demographic's perception and past.
Where true racism is the practice of viewing your world through the lens of skin color -- any skin color, racism in the Progressive sphere is discriminatory against the White demographic simply for political and ideological purposes.
Another example of redefinition is Obamacare. Progressives and Democrats keep talking about the law being about healthcare when, in reality, it is only about health insurance coverage. Access to actual healthcare has become more difficult under the law with more need being created than service providers can supply. Yet, we are being led to believe the law is about healthcare.
Progressives, in everything they do, are deceptive, and when their deception doesn't do the trick, they change the definitions and the rules. This is why Progressivism is poison to a free and/or sovereign society.
On the subject of the repeal of Obamacare, no one on the Right side of the aisle defends it better than Sen. John McCain (Ri-AZ). That said, it is time for him to be honest with the people of Arizona, call for a special election in that State, and switch parties before doing so.
Republicans of all stripes -- even the Democrat in sheep's clothing McCain -- initially called for the repeal of Obamacare at all cost. Everyone with an "R" behind his or her name ran on it. Then, in an attempt to attract more moderate voters in the General Election, the mantra morphed to "repeal and replace."
Make no mistake, Republicans and the majority of American people simply want the law repealed. In fact, many of us believe the solution to high insurance premiums is to reverse more of the government encroachment into the private sector health insurance industry.
But the socially liberal McCain says, "I fear we may fall under the trap of repealing and not replacing and that would be bad for America."
McCain, as all big government oligarchs do, believes government has a role to play in the private sector where the free choice of health care and health insurance is concerned.
Obamacare should not be replaced. It is a failed law that needs to be repealed for the good of the country. If government wants to assist the private sector they should provide tax-cut incentives to the insurance companies to create non-profit entities to relieve the burdens associated with people with pre-existing conditions. Additionally, they should outlaw the compartmentalization of health insurance, allowing for portability over state lines.
But in no way shape or form is a "replacement" of Obamacare necessary or good for the country. In insisting that it is, John McCain proves himself -- yet again -- to be a Democrat, not a Republican, and certainly not a conservative.
Democrats in the California State Legislature have been the targets death threats and threats of violence by Leftists after they scrapped a bill that would have established a single-payer (read: Socialist) health insurance system in that state.
The irony here is that Democrats -- and especially California Democrats, and in particular Northern California Democrats -- have been nurturing the violent attitudes of the Left where Republicans, conservatives and all-things Trump are concerned. "Resist!" they say. And they have enjoined with violent groups like ANTIFA and routinely refused to condemn recent political violence with a full-throated voice.
So, now Democrats and moderate liberals are reaping the affects of their efforts. They are now starting to receive death threats and threats of violence from their own creations. They are now starting to understand why they never should have entertained the wishes of the Progressive and anarchic Left, having done so purely for political opportunity.
Democrats, real Democrats, must make a move to expunge Progressives from their political party. They must make the faction that has dragged their party to the edge of the abyss on the Left; to the edge of violent anarchy, stand on its own as a political ideology so that Democrats can recapture their own party.
The Democrat Party has been hijacked by Progressive radicals. It isn't even a shadow of what the party was under Kennedy or even Bill Clinton. It is an elitist oligarchy fueled by billionaire coastal creatures that literally looks down its nose at rank-and-file working, taxpaying Americans.
Democrats need a revolution within their party to take it back from the radicals that are incrementally destroying that political party.
Something is fundamentally wrong when a judge -- or in this case a panel of judges -- can mandate the execution of a Federal agency rule as law. But that's just what DC US Court of Appeals just did.
The panel ruled that the head of the EPA overstepped his authority in his directive to delay implementation of a new rule requiring the monitoring and reduction of methane leaks. The DC Court ordered the EPA to move forward with the Obama-era requirement.
Far be it for me to ask this obvious question, but when did an agency "rule" become as potent as a legislated law? And when did an agency head lose the authority to suspend or end "rules" created under the purview of said agency?
This is the danger of Federal bureaucracy. This is the danger of the Deep State. Laws are created through the process of legislation. They are crafted, sent through committee and then debated in full on the House floor. Then the whole process is done again in the Senate before it goes back to the House again. Only then does it reach the president's desk for the opportunity to be signed into law.
This process allows for the maximum amount of process to ensure that the will of the people is served. After all, the government works for us; we do not work for the government.
But with this judicial decree, an agency "rule" has been given the potency; the power of legislated law. The order usurps the process that guarantees government works for the people. In reality, this order places the authority of a bureaucratic agency above that our our representative government!
This is literally anti-American -- and quite unconstitutional -- as it usurps and up-ends the authority of our elected government. It allows Deep State agency bureaucracies to wield the power of lawmaking, and that's not representative government.
Last night on one of the FOX News talking heads shows, former Bush Administration speech-writer Marc Thiessen said it would be a disaster to simply repeal Obamacare now and work on another health insurance scheme later. This is why politicians can't execute good government: Because they put politics over good government.
Republicans have abandoned a vote to repeal and replace Obamacare before the Independence Day holiday. They were forced to do so because there are several fiscal hawks who hate what the replace component entails. The one thing they all agree on is the repeal part. So why not just repeal the thing?
There are several reasons why simply repealing Obamacare would change the dynamic in Washington, DC. First, it would eliminate the option of "obstruction at all cost to protect Obamacare" from the Democrat play book. Thiessen says this would be a political liability, but that's because he is of the Republican cloth that absolutely sucks at messaging Democrats into a corner.
Democrats would be put on the spot to negotiate something -- anything -- to validate their claim to being champion of the less fortunate. With Obamacare repealed they would necessarily have to negotiate something on healthcare or be seen as doing nothing for those who lost coverage with the repeal, and strictly for political purposes.
Anyone with a keyboard and an Internet connection could fashion a narrative that states Democrats are doing nothing because power is more important to them than the people they claim to care for. So, why not Republicans?
Repealing Obamacare and then worrying about another piece of government-encroaching legislation into the private sector insurance trade forces Democrats to the negotiating table lest they be branded as heartless political hacks.
Personally -- and I have stated this before, the removal of government limitations in the health insurance industry is all important. Insurance companies should not be allowed to compartmentalize access, and tort reform goes a long way to reducing costs and extending coverage, not to mention opening more physicians to the process.
As to the pre-existing conditions issue, the answer is easy. Congress should create a tax incentive for the many health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to create non-profit groups (much like what Blue Cross and Blue Shield used to be) to their for-profit entities that specifically cater to the pre-existing conditions demographic. Those tax incentives coupled with affordable premiums, would more than cover the cost of the policies.
So, how about a little common sense, "get-the-government-out-of-the-way" legislation that actually moves the process along and that actually serves the American people for a freaking change?!
Repeal Obamacare now! Force the Democrats and Progressives to the table!
Representing the American black demographic in Washington, DC, comes under the purview of the Congressional Black Caucus. They look at everything through the lens of race and promote anything that benefits black Americans above all else. So, it was disturbing to find that they spend lavishly on themselves as an entity.
The PAC associated with this race-based group (PACs are the money arms of any political group) has a mission statement that reads: "[to increase] the number of African Americans in the US Congress [and to] support non-Black candidates that champion our interests, and promote African American participation in the political process-with an emphasis on young voters."
Seems pretty clear cut. So why are these black elitists spending hundreds of thousands of dollars -- donated funds meant to further the black American cause -- on lavish upscale resorts and hotels, catering at exclusive restaurants, and on Broadway tickets. among many other non-political things?
How are any of those expenditures related to advancing the black American cause? Answer: they don't.
This spending is indicative of the Washington, DC, swamp mindset. This has nothing to do with "public service," and everything to do with living "high on the hog" off other people's money, a purely Socialist and Oligarchic thing to do.
So, next time you hear Maxine Waters or Jim Clayburn or any of the other CBC mouthpieces talking about the plight of the poor black Americans, remember how they spent money meant to further the cause of black Americans.
In the aftermath of the Democrat protested 2016 General Election, the President created the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to investigate all those Democrat claims of voter fraud. So, naturally, the usual suspect Democrats are choosing not to cooperate.
Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat governor of Virginia and intimate Clinton crony, said of the commission's request for documents, "I have no intention of honoring this request. Virginia conducts fair, honest, and democratic elections, and there is no evidence of significant voter fraud in Virginia." He claims the commission is based on the "specious and false notion that there was widespread voter fraud last November."
What? Wait a minute. Haven't we been told that there was wide=spread Russian hacking into our election? Haven't the Clinton campaign and their Progressive surrogates in the mainstream media been shrieking about how Trump stole the election? Isn't the false-narrative of Trump-Putin collusion to win the election on every news show ad nauseum?
And now one of the most politically entangled operatives of the Democrat-Clinton Cartel, in one of the most influential states in any Federal election, is refusing to cooperate into an investigation to each of these complaints -- their complaints - because he saiys there was no voter fraud or malfeasance?
There are only two possible reasons for such a response: 1) There is massive voter fraud in place -- systemically -- in the Democrat Party and especially Virginia; or 2) McAuliffe is a schizophrenic.
I suspect the former, but can't rule out the latter.