Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Great time of year.... yum
Not the only thing Trump threw out........
Prosperity Is Destiny
If the economy grows during Trump’s administration, his opposition will dwindle.
By Victor Davis Hanson — January 24, 2017
“Ten thousand cuts an awful lot of family ties.”
— Pike Bishop in The Wild Bunch
When Ronald Reagan entered office in 1981 amid negative economic growth, roaring inflation, and high unemployment, his critics immediately grew emboldened and sought to ankle-bite him at every turn: Reagan purportedly had created homelessness all by himself; Reagan was on the verge of ensuring a “nuclear winter” and a “day after” desolation from a likely nuclear exchange, given his nihilistic tough stance against the Soviet Union.
After dismantling the air-traffic controllers’ union, Reagan had supposedly endangered the lives of plane passengers and ruined the idea of unionism itself, replacing it with “let them eat cake” indifference.
Yet four years later — with an economy booming at over 7 percent per year — Reagan breezed to reelection victory. It was suddenly “Morning in America.” His 1984 election opponent, a decent and respected Walter Mondale, was reduced to a cardboard-cutout caricature of fossilized 1960s liberalism.
Bill Clinton did almost everything imaginable to destroy his presidency in his last two years in office: kinky sexual explorations with a young subordinate intern, lying under oath about his tawdry escapades, and a recrudescence of older sexual-harassment allegations. Most Americans believed that he was an inveterate liar and would never leave their teenage daughters in the same room with such a creepy sexual predator. No matter — he was not removed from office even though he’d been impeached. His Republican accusers never quite understood that the American people preferred having an economy with a growth rate above 4.5 percent to removing a sleazy Lothario from office.
George W. Bush got reelected in 2004 despite massive opposition to the ongoing Iraq War because the economy was growing at nearly 4 percent in 2004. He left unpopular in 2009, not only owing to Iraq (evidence was already in by January 2009 that his bold surge had worked) but also because the economy had imploded in September 2008.
One reason that a personally popular, landmark Barack Obama failed as president — aside from doubling the debt, institutionalizing zero interest rates, leaving a mess in the Middle East, and using his un-Midas touch to undermine nearly everything he tapped, from health care to immigration law to race relations — was that he was the first modern president under whose tenure the economy never reached a modest 3 percent economic-growth rate. Had Obama just achieved 4 percent economic growth, Hillary Clinton would be president.
In other words, economic growth and perceived prosperity cut a lot of political ties.
The election of Donald Trump has turned everything in the political world, from the trivial to the existential, upside down. He is the first non-politician without military experience to become president. The polls and press caricatured him for nearly two years as a classic loser. He won despite being outspent and out-organized, and without real support from his own party or the mainstream conservative press. The Left is rightly convinced that he is a danger to the postmodern redistributive state. The Never Trump Right is still invested in his eventual implosion, issuing “I warned you about him” messages in a nonstop effort of self-justification.
Trump’s demeanor, language, and comportment remain antithetical to what we are accustomed to in a sober and judicious president. Cat-like Barack Obama gracefully tiptoed down the steps of Air Force One almost like a prissy metrosexual; a grimacing Trump stalks about as if he were on a work site inspecting the cement on a newly laid foundation. Obama, with his Mussolini-like strutting jaw, conveyed collective revolutionary confidence to the Left; to Left and Right alike, the scowl from a slouching Trump suggests unrepentant payback to come.
The nation’s stunning new First Lady is foreign-born and speaks heavily accented English. Trump is the first thrice-married president and the first billionaire to assume office. All that is just the personal disconnect from norms of the past.
On policy, Trump promises to outdo the reset of Ronald Reagan, who lacked Trump’s Republican-controlled Congress, vast majorities in the state legislatures and governorships, and the blank-check authority bequeathed by Harry Reid and Barack Obama, whose ends-justify-any-means-necessary changes in legislative and executive protocols have fortified the presidency with enormous new avenues of power. Reagan lacked the legislative apparatus to become a true revolutionary; Trump’s windfall Republican majorities almost force him into that insurrectionary role.
So Trump is intent on overturning Obama’s therapeutic foreign policy, slashing federal spending, rebuilding the military, exporting fossil fuels, waging a cultural war against political correctness and the liberal media, and enforcing immigration law. In other words, from his person to his policies, Donald Trump is a revolutionary, with a huge target on his back that the foundations, universities, networks, major newspapers, Hollywood, and the coastal-strip elite will always have in their scope.
Indeed, in that regard, the Trump revolution’s mantra of “drain the swamp” is a sort of political RoundupTM strategy: The root causes of progressive hysteria must be addressed by fundamentally recalibrating approaches to the media, the universities, and immigration. It seems that Trump means to challenge the tactics that to date have fueled left-wing agendas that otherwise would not gain support from a majority of the public.
Political observers, left and right, assume that Trump’s mouth and personal recklessness will derail his agendas. Heraclitus’s “a man’s character is his destiny” (an obscure fragment [???? ?????p? da?µ??] that could be translated in a variety of quite different ways) is quoted ad nauseam to suggest that Trump’s intrinsic and immutable flaws will inevitably lead to overweening arrogance and thus catastrophe, as nemesis catches up with him at precisely the most opportune — and embarrassing — moment.
Perhaps.
But it’s far more likely that Trump’s fate will hinge on his economic reforms. Achieve 4 percent–plus GDP growth rate and then Black Lives Matter, the residuals of Occupy Wall Street, the hysterical House Democrats, and the assorted unhinged fringe of Michael Moore, Lena Dunham, and Madonna will recede into the woodwork.
In truth, we are on the cusp of a great experiment. For decades, conservatives, both traditional and pro-growth supply-siders, have preached that deregulation, reasonable and predictable Federal Reserve interest rates, reduced government, a radically simplified and pruned-back tax code, new incentives for investment, an open energy market, and a can-do psychological landscape that encourages entrepreneurship will make the economy soar at rates of 4 percent GDP and more.
We shall soon see. If Trump unleashes American know-how and strengthens the economy, then his cultural and domestic agendas, as well as his personal demeanor and language, however radical and jarring, will probably be accepted. In contrast, if he blows up the deficit and sees interest rates spike at Carter levels and the cost of debt service soar, if he allows unemployment to grow — while never exceeding Obama’s dismal economic growth rates — then the Trump agenda will stall and the media will be liberated to obsess over the tweets, gaffes, and bombast of every nanosecond of his presidency.
Economic growth cuts through political orthodoxy; economic stagnation intensifies it. Regrettably or not, prosperity, not character per se, determines a president’s political fate.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444140/trump-economy-prosperity-will-silence-his-opponents
There's a new boss in town........
There's a new boss in DC.....
He's a key person as Trump drains of the swamp.
Special prosecutor would be sweet.
Take his money, put it in the treasury and skin the sob.....
Her excuse for being a total bitch and getting a well deserved boot was amazing.
Uh oh, New England off to a good start.
Agree. Don't see any difference in their behavior. Always hostile and self righteous. We'll babe, here's an egg, you figure out what's best for you.......
Thought the Packers would win but Atlanta is on their game. Seems the Packers offense is a bit off today and that's all it takes.
VIDEO: WRETCHED LIBERAL HAG Removed From Plane After Harassing Trump Supporter
VIDEO: WRETCHED LIBERAL HAG Removed From Plane After Harassing Trump Supporter
Atlanta is kicking tail today.
Victor Davis Hanson - The Mythologies of the 2016 Election
I think there is one photo we like to see them have.......
Did the same, college too. Lived next door to a swim and tennis club. Butterfly. Water polo too. Coached national caliber swim teams with national top 10 kids. Olympic coach asked me to swim for him, said no. Didn't like Sherm plus liked ladies more than continuing to stick my head in the water. Great sport.
Yes they are!!!.......
Is anyone surprised?.....
Yes they are!!!!..............
Obama Frees Terrorist Bomb Maker
By Thomas Gallatin
Jan. 19, 2017
Democrats have a long-running love affair with Marxist revolutionaries. Displaying the mentality of a starry-eyed high school girl whose infatuation with the bad boy blinds her to danger, Democrats seem to lose all semblance of objectivity when it comes to these leftist terrorists. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton freed Marxist terrorists as they were leaving office and now Barack Obama has followed suit in his freeing of Oscar Lopez-Rivera.
Lopez-Rivera was convicted in 1981 for his actions in working to build bombs intended to destroy government property, seditious conspiracy, for the illegal transportation of firearms and armed robbery. He was sentence to 55 years in prison. Lopez-Rivera was a member of the Puerto Rican Marxist terrorist organization known as the Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN), which was responsible for nearly 150 bombings and several armed robberies.
The group was active from 1974 to 1983. One bombing in New York City in 1975 killed four and injured more than 50 people. FALN’s objective was to “free” Puerto Rico from U.S. control and bring about a Cuban-like communist dictatorship on the island.
New York City Councilman Joe Borelli stated, “Commuting his sentence proves that Obama and most liberals are out of touch with reality and [are] willing to sacrifice all norms in the name of progressivism.” Meanwhile, leftists like Lin-Manuel Miranda of “Hamilton” fame celebrated, tweeting that he was “sobbing with gratitude.” And one-time member of the Weather Underground terrorist group — infamous Obama buddy Bill Ayers — excitedly tweeted, “Oscar Lopez freed!”
This decision is actually not surprising given Obama’s actions in normalizing relations with communist Cuba. He ignored the atrocities committed by Fidel Castro’s regime as he has now overlooked the guilt of a similarly un-repentant terrorist, who refused Clinton’s offer of a pardon in 1999 on the condition that he disavow the use of terrorism. Talk about un-American.
https://patriotpost.us/posts/46971
Snowflakes on steroids......
Michael Moore speaking with the pinkies (regardless of actual sex) having a their moment. 1960, 70's all over again. Good luck.....
Elizabitch Warren running for President in 2020 seems to be a slam dunk.
One of our VCs is in Israel quite a bit researching their tech companies for potential investment and he is amazed how well it works.
I would say: Absolutely.
Israel, despite it's size, is stronger than the other countries. Plus they have the dome that gets daily rockets raining on them. Their expansion is a question making it more difficult to negotiate.
Wife of Gunman in Orlando Terror Attack Is Arrested
(No terrorist attacks on our soil?.....)
WASHINGTON — The wife of the man who carried out a deadly terrorist attack in Orlando, Fla., has been arrested in connection with the mass shooting, a law enforcement official said Monday.
The woman, Noor Salman, was taken into custody by F.B.I. agents at her home outside of San Francisco. Prosecutors had been weighing charges against her in the aftermath of the attack that killed 49 people and wounded dozens. A person familiar with details of the arrest said Ms. Salman was charged with obstruction.
Ms. Salman’s husband, Omar Mateen, was killed in a shootout with police during the rampage in a gay club on June 12, 2016. Investigators interviewed Ms. Salman for hours after the attack and came to believe she was not telling the truth about her husband’s plans to carry out the rampage.
She is expected to make an initial appearance on Tuesday in federal court in San Francisco.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wife-of-gunman-in-orlando-terror-attack-is-arrested/ar-AAlV4xI?li=BBnb7Kz
The Middle East Problem
(When BO is gone, wonder what changes we'll see.)
https://www.prageru.com/courses/foreign-affairs/middle-east-problem
When I did my graduate studies at the Middle East Institute at Columbia University’s School of International Affairs, I took many courses on the question of the Middle East conflict.
Semester after semester, we studied the Middle East conflict as if it was the most complex conflict in the world -- when in fact, it is probably the easiest conflict in the world to explain. It may be the hardest to solve, but it is the easiest to explain.
In a nutshell, it’s this: One side wants the other side dead.
Israel wants to exist as a Jewish state and to live in peace.
Israel also recognizes the right of Palestinians to have their own state and to live in peace. The problem, however, is that most Palestinians and many other Muslims and Arabs, do not recognize the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist.
This has been true since 1947, when the United Nations voted to divide the land called Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state.
The Jews accepted the United Nations partition but no Arab or any other Muslim country accepted it.
When British rule ended on May 15, 1948, the armies of all the neighboring Arab states -- Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Egypt -- attacked the one-day old state of Israel in order to destroy it.
But, to the world’s surprise, the little Jewish state survived.
Then it happened again. In 1967, the dictator of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, announced his plan, in his words, “to destroy Israel.” He placed Egyptian troops on Israel’s border, and armies of surrounding Arab countries were also mobilized to attack. However, Israel preemptively attacked Egypt and Syria. Israel did not attack Jordan, and begged Jordan’s king not to join the war.
But he did. And only because of that did Israel take control of Jordanian land, specifically the “West Bank” of the Jordan River.
Shortly after the war, the Arab states went to Khartoum, Sudan and announced their famous three “No’s: “No recognition, no peace, and no negotiations,”
What was Israel supposed to do?
Well, one thing Israel did, a little more than a decade later, in 1978, was to give the entire Sinai Peninsula -- an area of land bigger than Israel itself, and with oil -- back to Egypt because Egypt, under new leadership, signed a peace agreement with Israel.
So, Israel gave land for the promise of peace with Egypt, and it has always been willing to do the same thing with the Palestinians. All the Palestinians have ever had to do is recognize Israel as a Jewish state and promise to live in peace with it.
But when Israel has proposed trading land for peace -- as it did in 2000 when it agreed to give the Palestinians a sovereign state in more than 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza -- the Palestinian leadership rejected the offer, and instead responded by sending waves of suicide terrorists into Israel.
Meanwhile, Palestinian radio, television, and school curricula remain filled with glorification of terrorists, demonization of Jews, and the daily repeated message that Israel should cease to exist.
So it’s not hard to explain the Middle-East dispute. One side wants the other dead. The motto of Hamas, the Palestinian rulers of Gaza, is: “We love death as much as the Jews love life.”
There are 22 Arab states in the world -- stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean. There is one “Jewish State” in the world. And it is about the size of New Jersey. In fact, tiny El Salvador is larger than Israel.
Finally, think about these two questions: If, tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, “We will fight no more,” what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced “We will fight no more,” what would happen?
In the first case there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and the mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.
As I said at the outset, it is a simple problem to describe: one side wants the other dead -- and if it didn’t, there would be peace.
Please remember this: There has never been a state in the geographic area known as Palestine that was not Jewish. Israel is the third Jewish state to exist in that area. There was never an Arab state, never a Palestinian state, never a Muslim or any other state.
That’s the issue: why can’t the one Jewish state the size of El Salvador be allowed to exist?
That is the Middle-East problem.
I’m Dennis Prager.
Are Humans More Valuable Than Animals?
Are you more valuable than a dog or a cat or, for that matter, a tree?
One of the biggest differences between Judeo-Christian values and secular values concerns this very issue: the worth of the human being. According to the Judeo-Christian value system, human beings are infinitely valuable.
On the other hand, secular humanism devalues the worth of humans. As ironic as it may sound, the God-based Judeo-Christian value system renders humans infinitely more valuable than any humanistic value system.
The reason is simple: if there is no God, human beings are only material beings – and therefore not worth anything beyond the matter of which they are composed. But in the Judeo-Christian system human beings are created in “the image of God,” meaning that human life is sacred. In other words, we are either created in the image of carbon atoms – and therefore not worth much more than carbon – or we are created in the image of God and therefore infinitely valuable.
Our secular, post-Judeo-Christian society has rendered human beings less significant than at any time in Western history.
First, the secular denial that human beings are created in God’s image has led to humans increasingly being equated with animals. That's why over the course of 30 years of asking high school and college students if they would first try to save their dog or a stranger, two-thirds have always voted against the person. They either don’t know what they would do or they actually vote for the dog. Many adults now vote similarly.
Why? There are two reasons. One is that with the denial of the authority of higher values such as religious teachings, people increasingly make moral decisions on the basis of how they feel. And since just about everybody feels more for their dog than for a stranger, many people simply choose the dog.
The other reason is that, once you get rid of Judeo-Christian values, there is no reason for elevating human worth over that of an animal.
That’s why people estranged from Judeo-Christian values (including many Jews and Christians) support programs such as “Holocaust on Your Plate.” “Holocaust on Your Plate” is a campaign developed by the animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) that teaches that there is no difference between the barbecuing of chickens in America and the burning of Jews in the Holocaust. Why? Because a human and a chicken are of equal worth.
So, too, in a notorious Tucson, Arizona case, a woman screamed to firefighters that her three “babies” were in the burning house. Thinking that the woman’s children were trapped inside, the firefighters risked their lives to save the woman’s three cats.
If you think these two examples are either just theoretical (the dog-stranger question) or extreme (the Tucson mother of cats), here’s an issue that is neither theoretical nor extreme: More and more people believe, as PETA does, that even if it would lead to a cure for cancer or AIDS, it would be wrong to experiment on animals. In fact, many animal rights advocates believe that even to save a human life, it would be wrong to kill a pig to obtain a heart valve.
The twentieth century showed vividly what happens to human worth when Judeo-Christian values are abandoned.
Nazi Germany and the various Communist regimes all rejected Judeo-Christian values and ended up slaughtering the largest number of people in human history.
For Nazism, Jews and members of other “non-Aryan” groups were declared worthless and murdered in the millions. For Communists, human worth was determined solely by Communist parties, which murdered tens of millions of people.
Only by rejecting Judeo-Christian values could Nazis declare Jews, Slavs, and others “sub-human.” And only by rejecting Judeo-Christian values could Communist regimes slaughter those they call “class enemies.” Individual human life meant nothing.
Meanwhile, human slavery was abolished only in the Judeo-Christian world.
And, of course, for nearly all those who reject Judeo-Christian values, the human fetus is worthless if its mother deems it so.
Finally, there is an increasingly vocal part of the environmentalist movement that also denigrates human worth. For these individuals, the human being is not infinitely precious; trees, and rivers, and mountains are.
So, are you more valuable than a dog, or a cat, or a tree? That depends on your value system.
https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy/are-humans-more-valuable-animals
We follow it. Too bad Barry and family aren't moving back.......
The amazing farce is BO telling the world in his 'interviews' that no American has died on US soil from a foreign terrorist attack since 911. Of course, the media continues to pile blame on 43 for the terrorists that were a direct result of Clinton as was the housing crisis. But who needs facts when the media makes up whatever they want....... The sheeple didn't get it the last election so they will go into overdrive until they win the next ones. Congress first, then the Presidency is their goal.
The Paris Climate Agreement Won't Change the Climate
https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/paris-climate-agreement-wont-change-climate
Much has been made of the Paris Climate Agreement signed by the leaders of 178 countries in 2016. French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, speaking for many, called it a "historic turning point."
The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy, echoed the minister's remark when she testified before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The Paris Agreement was, she said, an "incredible achievement." But when pressed by committee members to explain exactly how much this treaty would reduce global temperatures, she would not – or could not – say.
This combination of grand pronouncements and vague specifics is a good strategy for Paris Agreement fans to take. Because the agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming.
Consider the Obama administration's signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan. Using the same climate prediction model that the UN uses, I found that the power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris Agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century – the Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just 0.023 degrees Fahrenheit.
The President has made further, and grander, promises of future U.S. carbon cuts, but these are only vaguely outlined. In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees.
To put it another way, if the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President's very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.
Now let's add in the rest of the world's Paris promises. If we generously assume that the promised carbon cuts for 2030 are not only met (which itself would be a U.N. first), but sustained, throughout the rest of the century, temperatures in 2100 would drop by 0.3 degrees – the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. Again, that's using the UN's own climate prediction model.
But here's the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free; quite the contrary.
The cost of the Paris climate pact is likely to run to 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year, based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise. In other words, we will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature, by the end of the century, by a grand total of three tenths of one degree.
Some Paris Agreement supporters defend it by claiming that its real impact on temperatures will be much more significant than the U.N. model predicts. But this requires mental gymnastics and heroic assumptions.
The Climate Action Tracker, widely cited by Paris Agreement fans, predicts a temperature reduction of 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. But this prediction is based very heavily on the assumption that even stronger climate policies will be adopted in the future. Actually, 98% of the assumed reductions will come only after 2030, which is what the current Paris agreement covers.
And even such wishful thinking won't achieve anything close to the 2 degrees Celsius reduction that has become the somewhat arbitrary, but widely adopted, benchmark to avoid the worst effects of global warming. The actual promised emission reductions under the Paris agreement literally get us just 1 percent of the way to the 2 degrees target. 99 percent of what would be required is put off until after 2030.
The Paris Agreement is the wrong solution to a real problem. The right solution will most likely be found through green-energy research and development, like that promoted by Bill Gates and the Breakthrough Coalition. Mr. Gates has announced that private investors are committing $7 billion for clean energy R&D.
Instead of political hot air and ever-larger government subsidies of today's inefficient green technologies, those who want to combat climate change should focus on dramatically boosting green energy innovation.
The U.S. already shows the way. With its pursuit of fracking, making it safer and more efficient every year, America has drastically reduced the cost of natural gas. This momentous switch from coal to lower-CO2 gas as a source of energy has done far more to drive down carbon-dioxide emissions than any recent government climate policy.
Turns out that those politicians who gathered in Paris, France, could learn a lot from Paris, Texas.
I'm Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.
We get rid of the most destructive President in history and give Trump an opportunity to work, he can do it. We do know he will have the largest, sharpest attack machine in the world hammering him every second of the day.
Farewell, Obama — and Not Soon Enough
By Nate Jackson
Jan. 11, 2017
How appropriate that Barack Obama would give his farewell speech in Chicago. The Windy City has suffered for generations under one-party Democrat hegemony, leaving nothing but an urban poverty plantation1 suffering horrific murder rates2 and despicable “hate crimes”3 against a mentally disabled white man. Naturally, Obama didn’t mention any of that as he gave his last great paean to himself before leaving office next week.
It wasn’t for lack of time, either, given that his 53-minute address was longer than George W. Bush’s, Bill Clinton’s and Ronald Reagan’s … combined. And while the other three gave their speeches from the White House, Obama packed out a public venue for the party. He certainly does think an awful lot of himself.
Naturally, he spent much of his time reciting all the great things he accomplished. It was Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s sonnet, “How Do I Love Thee?” — to Obama, from Obama.
For example, while discussing homeland security, the way he parsed his record would make even Bill Clinton blush: “No foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland these past eight years.” He’s made this outrageous claim before, so it was no surprise. But of course, he’s dismissing Islamic State-inspired jihadi attacks in Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino and Orlando, just to name a few. And he neglected to mention that he created the Islamic State4 and the ensuing humanitarian crisis5 because of his stubbornly disastrous withdrawal from the Middle East. His record is one of deadly failure.
But the big takeaway was simple: His theme was to promote “unity,” all while reciting and fomenting discord.
Among other things, he did it with a sly use of vocabulary that emphasizes leftist goals. He used the word “republic” once — and that is what our nation still is — but he repeated “democracy” and its variants no less than 25 times. “We, the People, through the instrument of our democracy, can form a more perfect union,” Obama opined. “This is the great gift our Founders gave us.”
In 1814, John Adams wrote, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Does that sound like our Founders wanted to give that “great gift”?
No, they warned against democracy precisely because of the demagoguery that would ensue from craven men like Barack Obama.
Obama also waxed eloquent about how we should “strive together,” “embrace all” and “restore the sense of common purpose,” because, he admonished, “for all our outward differences, we are all in this together” and “we rise or fall as one.”
That’s all well and good, but he then proceeded to divide Americans via the typical leftist template: rich and poor, men and women, black and white, etc. Indeed, he declared, “race remains a potent and often divisive force in our society.”
We’ll give him some credit for quoting the immortal but fictitious Atticus Finch, who said, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view — until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” Obama challenged all of us to feel some empathy for the struggles other Americans and immigrants face.
He’s right, but it was also one of his most obnoxious “do as I say, not as I do” moments. Obama and his ilk have showed nothing but contempt for the people he accused of “bitterly clinging” to their worldview. Or, as one prominent wealthy liberal called us commoners, “irredeemable … deplorables6.”
He declared, “I reject discrimination against Muslim Americans,” but he made no mention of the Christians facing hateful discrimination from the Rainbow Mafia here at home, or, worse, deadly persecution from Muslims abroad.
In that light, it’s no wonder his caution that we not “allow our political dialogue to become … so coarse with rancor that Americans with whom we disagree are not just misguided, but somehow malevolent” rings so hollow. If ever there was a reason for Donald Trump’s rise, it’s that Democrats treat so many Americans as not just misguided but malevolent7.
That’s especially true when Democrats speak of Republicans. As The Daily Signal’s Fred Lucas notes, “He once accused Republicans of having a plan to create ‘dirtier air, dirtier water,’ for instance, and said Republican opponents of the Iran nuclear deal found ‘common cause’ with hardliners in the Islamic regime.”
Even last night, Obama called our elected representatives in Congress “dysfunctional,” which is something most conservatives might concede, albeit with a different definition. Obama means that Republicans are bound to “rigid extremes” and won’t pass leftist legislation. A better definition of “dysfunctional” would be Obama himself, if the meaning is consistently losing Supreme Court cases regarding executive overreach.
In other words, there is disunity, but Obama created it by pushing the most far-left agenda this nation has ever seen, all while abusing power and slandering his political opponents.
You see, when Obama calls for unity, it’s only under his banner of statism and politically correct intolerance. Americans have largely rejected that banner. Obama’s legacy includes Democrats losing control of the House and Senate, the White House, and state legislatures and governorships nationwide.
Come to think of it, maybe he fostered unity after all.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/46833
It is supposed to be a repeal and replace the same day, announce one then the other. The House passed the ability to repeal, should go to the Senate for that vote. Once passed in the Senate, the ability to repeal and replace should take place when they have the new laws in place. The only other thing I can see is that they approve it, present the new plan then replace the existing plan. Limbo isn't acceptable. It will take a coordination with the insurance companies to make this happen.
We have our own insurance program so won't have to worry about it. No BO Care here so no change.
I believe a massive scare campaign will be non-stop screaming by the media will be up to and after the changeover. Didn't have an issue changing to it but if someone's hair gets out of place, we'll hear non-stop whining. The dims will do anything and everything to make it the 'worst thing in the history of the world.'
Tom Price, the Specialist Our Ailing Health-Care System Needs
Democrats’ plan to block his nomination to the cabinet is a shameful partisan ploy.
By William J. Bennett — January 11, 2017
Tom Price, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, should be quickly confirmed for the post. However, Senate Democrats are desperately trying to throw a wrench in the gears of his confirmation process and hope to bring it to a halt. In the history of the department, there may not be another secretary with Price’s stellar combination of medical experience, health-policy expertise, proven leadership, public service in the state legislature and in Congress, and knowledge of the federal budget process. If anyone can cure what ails the American health-care system in a post-Obamacare world, it is the good doctor. And that’s what Democrats are afraid of.
Price is a six-term Georgia congressman representing suburban Atlanta. He serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over health care and tax matters. After Obamacare was passed, he was the first congressman to put forth a serious, detailed proposal for replacing Obamacare with reforms that empower patients instead of the government. And he has taken the politically courageous step of proposing solutions to ensure the long-term solvency of important programs such as Medicare. He appeared on my radio show, Morning in America, making the case for these alternative plans long before anyone else. He knew that Obamacare would eventually unravel and that there would come a day when Republicans would need to be ready to offer a serious alternative plan.
Until recently, he served as chairman of the House Budget Committee. In that role, he helped forge balanced-budget agreements and demonstrated an in-depth understanding of the budgetary impact of programs and policies at HHS.
The U.S. Congress was not his first foray into public service. Price was elected to the Georgia state senate in 1996. He quickly earned a reputation for being a policy wonk and tireless problem-solver. Recognizing his leadership abilities, his colleagues in the senate chose him to be minority whip. In 2002, they elected him as the first Republican senate majority leader in Georgia history. His peers in the U.S. House of Representatives repeatedly chose him for leadership positions, and he willingly took them on.
Price accepted these roles because he felt he had a duty to make a difference. This sense of duty is what called him to follow in his father’s and grandfather’s footsteps and enter the medical profession. For more than 20 years, Dr. Price was a practicing orthopedic surgeon. He taught medical residents at one of the largest public hospitals in the country, where he tended to vulnerable, at-risk patients. He witnessed their unique needs and challenges in accessing care and was determined to make the health-care system work better for them. He saved and transformed lives with his surgical skills. We need him to do the same at HHS with his policy and leadership skills.
For Price, health care is personal. It’s about a child who needs corrective surgery to straighten his spine so he can stand tall. It’s about enabling an elderly woman to walk again and regain her independence. Unfortunately, thanks to Obamacare, it’s now about an intrusive government that has forced people off their health plans, away from their physicians, and to the brink of bankruptcy due to skyrocketing premiums.
Price has drawn support throughout the health-care community, from his colleagues in Congress, and from the editorial boards at both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed, a Democrat who worked with him in the state legislature, has praised Price’s intellect and work ethic.
Senate Democrats view this doctor/educator/legislator/leader as a quadruple threat. But to Americans buckling under the burden of unaffordable health-care coverage, he is just the specialist they need. Our health-care system is on life support. Democrats want to pull the plug by blocking the one person who is uniquely qualified to administer a cure. Their shameful partisan ploy is at best malpractice, at worst malfeasance. It needs to stop.
— William J. Bennett served as secretary of education for President Ronald Reagan and is the chairman of Conservative Leaders for Education and a Fox News contributor
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443716/tom-price-secretary-health-human-services-qualifications-senate-democrats-block
Ground Truth Briefing: What Does Mexico Expect of President-elect Donald Trump?
The Takeaways
Last year, a number of issues related to Mexico became a focus of the U.S. presidential campaign, and many of President-elect Donald Trump’s policy promises continue to center on immigration and trade with Mexico. On January 10, 2016, Duncan Wood, Director of the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, moderated a discussion on the range of reactions that Mexicans have had to the election of Donald Trump and the hopes and expectations they have for future negotiations between the Mexican government and the incoming Trump administration.
Juan Pardinas, Director of the Mexico Institute for Competitiveness, began the discussion by noting that though many in Mexico expected Trump’s rhetoric to shift after winning the presidential election, it is now clear Trump indeed intends to follow through on his campaign promises upon reaching the White House. As the President-elect continues to threaten to impose a 35 percent tariff on automobiles imported from Mexico, Ford has decided to scrap its plans to build a $1.6 billion plant in San Luis Potosí and Fiat-Chrysler has announced that it may follow Ford’s lead. Pardinas then highlighted the country’s concern with the Mexican government’s failure to respond to these recent events or to outline a clear, concrete strategy for approaching negotiations with the incoming Trump administration, which has sparked anxiety among both the market and the Mexican population.
Luis de la Calle, an expert in international trade who participated in the design, promotion, and implementation of NAFTA, joined the conversation to reiterate this point and to emphasize the importance of the Mexican government drawing clear boundaries during future negotiations.
Highlighting the fact that Mexico is the United States’ 2nd largest market, de la Calle suggested that the Mexican government should not enter a renegotiation of NAFTA from a purely defensive position. Instead, he suggested, Mexico should prepare a series of proposals, including improving transportation and energy infrastructure, border efficiency, student exchange, medical tourism, among others.
Agreeing with de la Calle’s suggestions, Pardinas emphasized that Mexico cannot portray itself as a weak trading partner. In order to keep NAFTA intact, Mexico will have to demonstrate how the trade agreement is beneficial for the United States, how it has strengthened North America’s competitiveness in the global market, and how imposing trade barriers between Mexico and the United States would be counterproductive. If Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Mexico’s new Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray are incapable of outlining these clear boundaries for negotiations, both Pardinas and de la Calle suggested that Mexico may have to redefine its relationship with the United States beyond diplomatic links through the involvement of private companies, think tanks, and other sectors of civil society.
When asked about how the election of Donald Trump has affected companies’ investment plans, de la Calle indicated that “every time Donald tweets, the peso reacts,” but that so far the market has not seen a large decline in investment programs into Mexico. In fact, he says, if Donald Trump continues his threats, it may attract investment into Mexico since by devaluing the Mexican peso, Trump has made Mexico more attractive. Also, companies are aware that it would be very difficult for Trump to impose a 35 percent duty on imports from Mexico and that this proposal will most likely be stopped by Congress. However, both experts concluded the conversation by noting that the future of global trade is incredibly uncertain.
- See more at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/ground-truth-briefing-what-does-mexico-expect-president-elect-donald-trump?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTVdKaFkySTBPREZsWkRJMSIsInQiOiJYVTVZODlxeXE4Q3d0R1VmSDkwVFwvQWw4YjZlcnBkTXNJXC9XZEl3VTdpbTFFR29lamd6WnhCbk12Q0FXYjJxM29RXC81WEx2ZWdtV0V3WWloZTBsYzIzNXhySHJEZnNZeEhRTVdtT1wvYWFvSDRrMHd5K2VXYThVT3QzTkE0ZjBuWisifQ%3D%3D#sthash.Krmmc5DZ.dpuf
Dead Harvest documentary:
I agree. There is a law that supposedly does not allow them to be investigated. Should go all the way to the top but they run the show and we're along for the ride...............
John Kerry got busted so many times for breaking the law and blatantly trading in shares coming out of meeting in front of reporters that he should be in jail.
http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-insider-trading-john-kerry-obamacare-health-care-reform-2011-11
You can imagine what he and his wife can make with her billion plus dollars to play with. Been going on for decades.
Boehner too:
http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/boehner-profits-from-obamacare-stocks/
Libs living in luxury complain about Trump after staying in his suites around the world?.... What's next for the Regressives?....
Maybe they all be neutered to be truly 'gender neutral', another central cause of the pretenders.
As if the Trump company is going to go into the high density, low cost housing business......
The classic thing: Go to DC broke, come back a multi millionaire.
Watching a presentation how in CA they want to expand forced high density low cost housing. Great, destroy cities around the state.
He already received it earlier in the day. Mattis retired over three years ago. The punk already knew it but was bitching because he will use it when he runs for office again in Oregon where the whine scenario fits his constituency. Classic lib shit protest for the record. McCain requested it to be stricken from the record and refused to return comment when the guy protested. The left..... can't live with them, can't drop them into a shark swarm off the coast of Oregon along with his constituency. Also, any Trump nominee, especially ones who are massively overqualified are going to get this shit.
The loon that just complained the General Mattis is a military person and that there would have to be an exception for him to serve..... hmmm, he retired 3 years ago and is a CIVILIAN. Amazing to see the dummies we have in our Congress that don't get it. Of course, he was a Dimocrat...... Guess the Dims want political hacks to run departments they have zero knowledge of.