Title :
link :
Helen & Moe Lauzier’s
Issues of the Day
Write us at: mvl270@yahoo.com
Wed. April 26, 2017
TrumpCare Being Held Up Over A Trifle
By DICK MORRIS
The House Republican "moderates" are holding up the Trump-Ryan health care bill over an issue that seems substantial, but is really trivial. This whole bill is being held up by a concern that some -- not even most but some -- of a pool of about 309 people per Congressional District might find it hard to get insurance.
The conservatives have proposed -- and Trump seems to have adopted -- two steps that will bring down premiums sharply: One, that states should be able to let insurance companies write policies that exclude one or more of the "essential" services Obamacare requires them to include. (Policies that cover these services fully will still be available for those that want them). Two, again with Trump's agreement, states would be able to abandon "community rating" in setting premiums. This change will let insurers price plans based on the age and health of the beneficiary, something Obamacare allows only within a very restricted band.
Both measures will bring basic, catastrophic insurance premiums way down and make them affordable, particularly for young couples just starting out. But "moderates" worry that the older (55-65) and sicker among the covered population will find the resulting premiums too high and unaffordable.
So Trump-Ryan have responded to these concerns by offering to let states set up high risk pools of sicker and older patients where higher premiums could be charged, with greater public subsidy. But "moderates" worry that the pool's policies may be unaffordable.
And that is where the bill stands right now.
But...the actual population about whom the moderates are worrying is not large.
ObamaCare, too, had a high-risk pool provision and, like the GOP "moderates", the program's sponsors vastly overestimated the number of people that would need it. It was called Pre-Existing Insurance Plan (PCIP) and was expected to cover 375,000 people at a cost of $5 billion.
But after four years of operation (until it was cancelled in 2014) only 134,708 people entered the pool. Did the rest find premiums outside it affordable? Most likely did. For those who did not, we can adjust the legislation after it is passed to deal with the problem. It's not worth scuttling the entire bill. Bear in mind that only about 5,000 people accounted for half of the money required.
So, come on. Don't hold up the new legislation over this detail. Use regulations to fix any problems that come up.
Put this whole issue in perspective: Fixing ObamaCare is the broken-down vehicle in the traffic lane that is causing the gridlock. It makes Trump look bad and his administration incompetent. It will cost us dearly in the midterm elections unless we get an ObamaCare reform and repeal passed.
Moderate and conservative Republicans: It is in your political interest and in the national interest that you compromise. It may not be perfection, but the Ryan-Trump bill is pretty damn good.
Jeff Sessions Made An Announcement That Could End Obama’s Deep State
Barack Obama loyalists entrenched in the deep state have plagued the Trump administration.
They have selectively leaked classified information in order to thwart Trump’s agenda.
But thanks to a big announcement by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, their sabotage-campaign may come to a screeching halt.
Sessions announced the Department of Justice would aggressively pursue leak investigations and prosecute leakers.
Politico reported:
“Attorney General Jeff Sessions says the Justice Department is aggressively investigating recent leaks of classified information and wants to put “some people in jail” over the disclosures.
“Whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail,” Sessions said in El Paso, Texas, during a border-security visit with Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly urged investigations into national security leaks, particularly those related to the ongoing FBI probe of possible ties between Trump campaign officials and the Russian government.
“I’ve actually called the Justice Department to look into the leaks,” Trump said during a news conference in February. “Those are criminal leaks.”
Asked about the administration’s approach to leaks Thursday, Sessions did not mention Trump or his request, but the former Alabama senator and former U.S. attorney said he believes the volume and seriousness of recent leaks have been unprecedented.
“We are going to step up our efforts and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks,” the attorney general said. “This is a matter that has gone beyond anything I’m aware of. We have professionals who have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks. Some of them are quite serious. So, yes it is a priority.”
The deep state has struck back at Trump through leaks.
And many conservatives believe the leakers are former Obama Intelligence Officials or career bureaucrats who are Obama loyalists.
The leaks began with The Washington Post publishing former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn speaking with the Russian Ambassador after the Obama administration enacted sanctions for Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 election.
The only way information could have ended up in the paper was someone illegally leaking that Flynn was caught on surveillance the government was running on the Russian Ambassador.
Other leaks soon followed.
The most recent illegal leak was the disclosure the FBI obtained a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page – a one-time Trump associate.
Conservatives have blasted the leaks as illegal and similar to “police state” tactics that dictators employ.
In authoritarian regimes, leaders use surveillance to gather information on opponents and employ it to destroy their adversaries.
The Obama deep state followed a similar path.
The media was eager to push the fake news conspiracy theory that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the election because the reality of the media is they are Democrat partisans with press passes.
They hate Trump and wanted to take him down.
So Obama supporters in the intelligence community illegally leaked selected classified information – that while not providing any evidence of wrong doing – allowed the press to run countless stories speculating about a Trump-Russian collusion.
But thanks to Jeff Sessions’ announcement, the Obama deep state may finally be held accountable for their criminal use of intelligence as political gossip to harm the Trump administration.
The Forgotten Genocide: Why It Matters Today
Today, April 24, marks the “Great Crime,” that is, the Armenian genocide that took place under Turkey’s Islamic Ottoman Empire, during and after WWI. Out of an approximate population of two million, some 1.5 million Armenians died. If early 20th century Turkey had the apparatuses and technology to execute in mass—such as 1940s Germany’s gas chambers—the entire Armenian population may well have been annihilated. Most objective American historians who have studied the question unequivocally agree that it was a deliberate, calculated genocide:
More than one million Armenians perished as the result of execution, starvation, disease, the harsh environment, and physical abuse. A people who lived in eastern Turkey for nearly 3,000 years [more than double the amount of time the invading Islamic Turks had occupied Anatolia, now known as “Turkey”] lost its homeland and was profoundly decimated in the first large-scale genocide of the twentieth century. At the beginning of 1915 there were some two million Armenians within Turkey; today there are fewer than 60,000…. Despite the vast amount of evidence that points to the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide, eyewitness accounts, official archives, photographic evidence, the reports of diplomats, and the testimony of survivors, denial of the Armenian Genocide by successive regimes in Turkey has gone on from 1915 to the present.
A still frame from the 1919 documentary film Auction of Souls, which portrayed eye witnessed events from the Armenian Genocide, including crucified Christian girls.Indeed, evidence has been overwhelming. U.S. Senate Resolution 359 from 1920 heard testimony that included evidence of “[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death [which] have left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys, and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of this most colossal crime of all the ages.” In her memoir, Ravished Armenia, Aurora Mardiganian described being raped and thrown into a harem (which agrees with Islam’s rules of war). Unlike thousands of other Armenian girls who were discarded after being defiled, she managed to escape. In the city of Malatia, she saw 16 Christian girls crucified: “Each girl had been nailed alive upon her cross, spikes through her feet and hands, only their hair blown by the wind, covered their bodies.” Such scenes were portrayed in the 1919 documentary film Auction of Souls, some of which is based on Mardiganian memoirs.
What do Americans know of the Armenian Genocide? To be sure, some American high school textbooks acknowledge it. However, one of the primary causes for it—perhaps the fundamental cause—is completely unacknowledged: religion. The genocide is always articulated through a singularly secular paradigm, one that deems valid only those factors that are intelligible from a modern, secular, Western point of view, such as identity politics, nationalism, and territorial disputes. As can be imagined, such an approach does little more than project Western perspectives onto vastly different civilizations of different eras, thus anachronism history.
War, of course, is another factor that clouds the true face of the Armenian genocide. Because these atrocities occurred during WWI, so the argument goes, they are ultimately a reflection of just that—war, in all its chaos and destruction, and nothing more. Yet Winston Churchill, who described the massacres as an “administrative holocaust,” correctly observed that “The opportunity [WWI] presented itself for clearing Turkish soil of a Christian race.” Even Adolf Hitler had pointed out that “Turkey is taking advantage of the war in order to thoroughly liquidate its internal foes, i.e., the indigenous Christians, without being thereby disturbed by foreign intervention.”
It is the same today throughout the Muslim world, wherever there is war: after the U.S. toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the nation’s Christian minority were first to be targeted for systematic persecution resulting in more than half of Iraq’s indigenous Christian population fleeing their homeland. Now that war has come to Syria—with the U.S. supporting the jihadis and terrorists—the Christians there are on the run for their lives.
There is no denying that religion—or in this context, the age-old specter of Muslim persecution of Christian minorities—was fundamental to the Armenian Genocide. Even the most cited factor, ethnic identity conflict, while legitimate, must be understood in light of the fact that, historically, religion—creed—accounted more for a person’s identity than language or heritage. This is daily demonstrated throughout the Islamic world today, where Muslim governments and Muslim mobs persecute Christian minorities—minorities who share the same ethnicity, language, and culture, who are indistinguishable from the majority, except, of course, for being non-Muslims.
If Christians are thus being singled out today—in our modern, globalized, “humanitarian” age—are we to suppose that they weren’t singled out a century ago by Turks?
Similarly, often forgotten is the fact that non-Armenians under Turkish hegemony, Assyrians and Greeks for example, were also targeted for cleansing. The only thing that distinguished Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks from Turks was that they were all Christian. As one Armenian studies professor asks, “If it [the Armenian Genocide] was a feud between Turks and Armenians, what explains the genocide carried out by Turkey against the Christian Assyrians at the same time?”
Today, as Turkey continues moving back to reclaiming its Islamic heritage, so too has Christian persecution returned. If Turks taunted their crucified Armenian victims by saying things like “Now let your Christ come and help you,” just last January, an 85-year-old Christian Armenian woman was repeatedly stabbed to death in her apartment, and a crucifix carved onto her naked corpse. Another elderly Armenian woman was punched in the head and, after collapsing to the floor, repeatedly kicked by a masked man. According to the report, “the attack marks the fifth in the past two months against elderly Armenian women,” one of whom lost an eye. Elsewhere, pastors of church congregations with as little as 20 people are targeted for killing and spat upon in the streets. A 12-year-old Christian boy was beaten by his teacher and harassed by students for wearing a cross around his neck, and three Christians were “satanically tortured” before having their throats slit for publishing Bibles.
Outside of Turkey, what is happening to the Christians of today from one end of the Muslim world to the other is a reflection of what happened to the Armenian Christians of yesterday. We can learn about the past by looking at the present. From Indonesia in the east to Morocco in the west, from Central Asia in the north, to sub-Saharan Africa—that is, throughout the entire Islamic world—Muslims are, to varying degrees, persecuting, killing, raping, enslaving, torturing and dislocating Christians. See my new book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians for a comprehensive account of one of the greatest—yet, like the Armenian Genocide, little known—atrocities of our times.
Here is one relevant example to help appreciate the patterns and parallels: in Muslim-majority northern Nigeria, Muslims, led by the Islamic organization, Boko Haram (“Western Education is Forbidden”) are waging a bloody jihad on the Christian minorities in their midst. These two groups—black Nigerian Muslims and black Nigerian Christians—are identical in all ways except, of course, for being Muslims and Christians. And what is Boko Haram’s objective in all this carnage? To cleanse northern Nigeria of all Christians—a goal rather reminiscent of Ottoman policies of cleansing Turkey of all Christians, whether Armenian, Assyrian, or Greek.
How does one explain this similar pattern of Christian persecution—this desire to be cleansed of Christians—in lands so different from one another as Nigeria and Turkey, lands which share neither race, language, nor culture, which share only Islam? Meanwhile, the modern Islamic world’s response to the persecution of Christians is identical to Turkey’s response to the Armenian Genocide: Denial.
Finally, to understand how the historic Armenian Genocide is representative of the modern day plight of Christians under Islam, one need only read the following words written in 1918 by President Theodore Roosevelt—but read “Armenian” as “Christian” and “Turkish” as “Islamic”:
the Armenian [Christian] massacre was the greatest crime of the war, and the failure to act against Turkey [the Islamic world] is to condone it… the failure to deal radically with the Turkish [Islamic] horror means that all talk of guaranteeing the future peace of the world is mischievous nonsense.
Indeed, if we “fail to deal radically” with the “horror” currently being visited upon millions of Christians around the Islamic world—which in some areas has reached genocidal proportions—we “condone it” and had better cease talking “mischievous nonsense” of a utopian world of peace and tolerance.
Put differently, silence is always the ally of those who would commit genocide. In 1915, Adolf Hitler rationalized his genocidal plans, which he implemented some three decades later, when he rhetorically asked: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
And who speaks today of the annihilation of Christians under Islam?
More war drums, and a big Russian threat
Defense Secretary James Mattis vowed on Monday that the U.S. would “confront” Russia for providing weapons and material support to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.
The top official’s remarks came during a press conference in Kabul.
“We’re going to have to confront Russia where what they’re doing is contrary to international law or denying the sovereignty of other countries,” Mattis said. “For example, any weapons being funneled here from a foreign country would be a violation of international law.”
Army Gen. John Nicholson, the top American commander in Afghanistan, told a Senate panel last year that the Russians had increased support for Taliban in the Afghan region in an effort to undermine U.S. and NATO efforts.
Russia, the Associated Press reported, denies the allegations, saying that its limited contact with warring factions in Afghanistan is focused only on eliminating Islamic hardliners in the region and bringing fundamentalists in line with the nation’s government.
Still, U.S. officials are making clear that they’re willing to challenge Russia directly over the matter.
“We’ll engage with Russia diplomatically,” Mattis said. “We’ll do so where we can, but we’re going to have to confront Russia where what they’re doing is contrary to international law or denying the sovereignty of other countries.”
Amid continued U.S. demonization of Russia, top officials in the country are signaling that plans could be underway to attack the U.S. economy in an effort to weaken its international influence.
Russian politician and economist Sergei Glazyev told state TV in the country that Russian and Chinese officials are working on a plan to ditch the U.S. dollar, which would severely weaken the country’s economy.
He said: “The more aggressive the Americans are, the sooner they will see the final collapse of the dollar and by getting rid of the dollar this would be the only way for victims of American aggression to stop this onslaught.
“As soon as we and China dump the dollar, it will be the end of the US’ military might.”
Glazyev wagers that the U.S. is currently conducting “a hybrid war with the entire world to shift their debt burden on to other countries, to confine everyone to the dollar and weaken territories they cannot control.”
He added: “In this context, the anti-Russian hysteria and growing Russophobia can be seen as a long-term factor linked with the specific interests of the United States’ ruling elite.”
If Trump gets his NAFTA review right, it could define his presidency
During a recent interview with the Associated Press, President Donald Trump declared that his administration is working on a plan to renegotiate NAFTA. If the president isn’t satisfied with the new terms of the so-far “disastrous” trade deal, he says its termination is still very much on the table.
According to the president, his White House is currently in the midst of a two-week examination of the best way for the U.S. to move forward regarding NAFTA, otherwise known as the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The president was mocked in the mainstream media last week for criticizing Canadian import laws that harm U.S. dairy producers by making their products less competitive against Canadian counterparts.
Despite the ribbing from the U.S. media and the constant replays of the “blame Canada” song made famous by South Park, this is a problem that lawmakers actually began looking into under the previous presidential administration.
As reported by Business Insider:
American lawmakers have had extensive communication with their Canadian counterparts over the past year. They’ve not only called Canada, but written Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and met with his cabinet officials about the country’s dairy pricing policies. Even former President Obama privately complained to Trudeau that the country’s policies were harming US exporters, according to the Canadian Press.
But no solutions have emerged, and lawmakers from each country appear to be gearing up for souring NAFTA negotiations, in which a showdown over ultra-filtered milk classification seems to be inevitable.
Dairy pricing is a dispute that has appeared to bridge traditional US party lines, creating an unlikely alliance between Trump, New York Democrats Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Wisconsin Republicans Gov. Scott Walker and House Speaker Paul Ryan.
Trump told the AP: “I am very upset with NAFTA. I think NAFTA has been a catastrophic trade deal for the United States, trading agreement for the United States. It hurts us with Canada, and it hurts us with Mexico. Most people don’t even think of NAFTA in terms of Canada. You saw what happened yesterday in my statements, because if you look at the dairy farmers in Wisconsin and upstate New York, they are getting killed by NAFTA.”
But while Trump’s remarks about dairy trade with Canada are stealing headlines at the moment, there’s another aspect of NAFTA that doesn’t get as much attention as it should: Its relationship to the U.S.’s illegal immigration problem.
That’s because as unfair as some NAFTA provisions are for U.S. producers, the trade agreement had a pretty catastrophic effect on Mexico’s agricultural economy.
The deal was promised to create massive employment opportunities south of the border when it was passed more than two-decades ago, but the reality has been quite opposite.
That’s because many U.S. companies shipped production to Mexico to benefit from the deal, but they never got around to shipping U.S.-style labor protections to their Mexican factory floors.
Meanwhile, U.S. farmers began shipping government-subsidized produce south, killing Mexican farm jobs.
As NPR explained in 2013:
The Mexican government used to subsidize corn. It kept the crop price high so small farmers could stay in business. And it kept tortilla prices low so poor people could eat. When NAFTA took effect two decades ago, the trade agreement phased out tariffs in order to lower costs and encourage investment between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The Mexican government ended its corn subsidy – maybe too quickly.
The U.S. government still subsidized highly productive American corn producers. Seventy-five thousand Iowa farmers grew twice as much corn as three million Mexican farmers at half the cost. U.S. corn flooded Mexico. An estimated two million Mexican farm workers in general left the countryside for big cities.
But what many of those workers, skilled only in agricultural trades, found were factory jobs that paid low wages producing goods for U.S. markets.
Sensing must be better on the other side of the border; they began to immigrate to the U.S in record numbers.
If Trump does re-work, or eliminate completely, NAFTA, he could unwittingly spark an economic rebirth in Mexico which, gradually, could make his border wall less and less necessary in the decades to come.
Michigan State Rep. Introduces Bill Banning Sharia Law...Rightfully So
Nick Kangadis
(Image: Screenshot/YouTube)You either adjust to living by the laws the U.S. already has on the books, or you can leave.
Someone is finally taking a stand against the Islamic caliphate that is happening in Michigan.
Republican Michigan State Rep. Michele Hoitenga has proposed a bill to the state legislature that would essentially ban the practice of Sharia Law in Michigan.
Should the bill pass, many Muslims in places like Dearborn, Mich. will no doubt raise a stink that they can’t properly practice their religion freely.
According to the proposed bill:
(2) As used in this act "foreign law" means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.
While the bill doesn’t point out Sharia specifically, it does prohibit any foreign law that wasn’t established in the U.S.
Here’s the thing. If you’re a Muslim, and you want to live in a place where you can establish and practice your own set of laws, then you shouldn’t have left your place of origin in the first place.
If a country, like the U.S., is open and welcoming enough to accept you into their society, then it would behoove you to assimilate to your new surroundings. Too many times people leave their crappy country in search of a better life, but when they get to their new residence they try to change it so that it resembles said crappy country.
Again, if you don’t like your new surroundings you can always leave. No one is keeping you here.
Opponents to the bill, like Democrat State Rep. Abdullah Hammoud of Dearborn, has been noted to have said that practices like female genital mutilation (FGM) have no link to Sharia.
“As a Muslim, I can tell you that I'm not aware of a fundamentalist version or another version that encourages female genital mutilation,” Hammoud said. “That’s just not a thing.”
Well, Rep. Hammoud, you might want to refresh yourself on your own religion, because you are in fact wrong.
Vice President of the Center for Security Policy Christopher Holton vehemently disagrees.
According to the Clarion Project:
Here’s the thing. If you’re a Muslim, and you want to live in a place where you can establish and practice your own set of laws, then you shouldn’t have left your place of origin in the first place.
If a country, like the U.S., is open and welcoming enough to accept you into their society, then it would behoove you to assimilate to your new surroundings. Too many times people leave their crappy country in search of a better life, but when they get to their new residence they try to change it so that it resembles said crappy country.
Again, if you don’t like your new surroundings you can always leave. No one is keeping you here.
Opponents to the bill, like Democrat State Rep. Abdullah Hammoud of Dearborn, has been noted to have said that practices like female genital mutilation (FGM) have no link to Sharia.
“As a Muslim, I can tell you that I'm not aware of a fundamentalist version or another version that encourages female genital mutilation,” Hammoud said. “That’s just not a thing.”
Well, Rep. Hammoud, you might want to refresh yourself on your own religion, because you are in fact wrong.
Vice President of the Center for Security Policy Christopher Holton vehemently disagrees.
According to the Clarion Project:
Holton also reports the opinion of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Sunni Islamic world’s foremost sharia scholar, head of the International Association of Muslim Scholars and European Council for Fatwa and Research, and chairman of the board of trustees of Islamic American University. Qaradawi is also considered the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual and ideological leader. Qaradawi issued a fatwa asserting that "circumcision is better for a woman's health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband" and that, "whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world.”
Although, give credit to Hammoud for trying to cover up the clear lack of human rights, particularly towards women and gays, that are part of Sharia. Hammoud is part of the problem.
Hoitenga even referenced Dr. Jumana Nagarwala. Nagarwala is the monster who along with other Islamic doctors allegedly performed FGM on minors in Michigan.
"If you have not heard by now, a doctor in Detroit is being charged with operating an underground clinic that actively engaged in genital mutilation on young girls," Hoitenga said in an email, "essentially practicing a fundamentalist version of Sharia Law."
Are there Muslims that are peaceful people? Of course.
Are there also a growing number of Muslims in this country that are trying to stain their ideology onto the fabric of America? Absolutely.
We can all live together, but until the growing radical portion of the Islamic faith recognizes the idea of a free society, it will not be an easy task.
Developing: UN Amb. Haley Reveals Obama’s Red Line in NK… Kim Is About to Get His Clock Cleaned
BY BEN MARQUIS
According to the Washington Free Beacon, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley may have offered up a hint about just what sort of action on the part of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un would prompt a response from the U.S. that would contain more than mere words.
During an appearance on NBC’s “Today Show,” Haley was asked if she thought the heated rhetoric and threats would force Kim into making a “catastrophic mistake.”
“No, and I think if you look at what is happening now, if there’s a catastrophic mistake, it’s going to be because he’s just continuing to try and instigate an issue,” stated Haley. “We’re going to continue to be stable, we’re going to continue to have the international community stable.”
“Is a pre-emptive strike against North Korea really being considered?” asked co-host Savannah Guthrie. “Is the administration actively planning for that?”
“We are not going to do anything unless he gives us reason to do something,” Haley said, prompting the hosts to press for clarification of what might draw a military response, according to TheBlaze.
“If you see him attack a military base, if you see some sort of intercontinental ballistic missile, then obviously we’re gonna do that,” explained Haley. “But right now we’re saying, ‘Don’t test, don’t use nuclear missiles, don’t try and do any more actions,’ and I think he’s understanding that. And China’s really helping us put that pressure on him.”
Though Kim thankfully has not launched any attacks at the military bases of others — at least not yet — he did seemingly reveal what were thought to be new intercontinental ballistic missiles during his nation’s recent celebration of their founding, according to CNBC, though the verdict of public and professional opinion has yet to come in for certain on that presumption.
“It’s very difficult to discern what’s real and what’s for show, but they certainly want to convey the impression that they have improved their nuclear capabilities,” explained Frank Lavin, former U.S. ambassador to Singapore.
Whether the new ICBMs revealed in the parade were real or elaborate fakes remained to be seen and was almost beside the point, as simply parading around what may or may not be actual nuclear-capable missiles would be highly unlikely to provoke a military response from President Donald Trump.
That said, should it be discovered that one of those alleged ICBMs was being prepared for launch, it is looking ever more likely that Trump will do something about it instead of sitting back to watch and wait. The same goes for any sort of nuclear test, which has been hinted and rumored to be forthcoming for some time now.
Ambassador Haley just seemed to indicate that either of those actions will earn Kim more than just a sharp rebuke from the international community. Kim should consider himself warned and tread lightly, should he have any sort of predilection for self-preservation.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to spread the word that Nikki Haley may have just revealed Trump’s “red line” when it comes to North Korea.
Trump’s New FTC Embracing that Old-Time Free Market Religion
(Chuck Muth) - The average American has absolutely no idea what the FTC is, what it’s supposed to do or even what the letters “FTC” stand for. But almost every business owner in American knows exactly what the Federal Trade Commission is.
In short, the FTC is supposed to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and foster competition in our free market. But like any other government program or department, the FTC over recent years has suffered from what in the military is called “mission creep.”
Actually, it hasn’t been the FTC itself that has “suffered,” but the business community that has been saddled with an avalanche of new bureaucratic regulations and accompanying paperwork. Thankfully, and not a moment too soon, that appears to be changing with the changing of the guard at the White House.
In January, President Donald Trump appointed Maureen K. Ohlhausen as Acting Chairman of the FTC.
“In pursuit of (the FTC’s) mission, I will work to protect all consumers from fraud, deception, and unfair practices,” Ohlhausen said at the time of her appointment. “I will safeguard competition while preserving American innovation and promoting economic liberty for all citizens. Finally, I will ensure the Commission minimizes the burdens on legitimate business as we carry out this vital work.”
Amen and hallelujah!
True to her word, after less than a month in the captain’s chair The Hill reported that Ohlhausen had launched “a task force to reduce occupational licensing regulations,” criticizing “license policies that she said go too far by extending to interior designers and makeup artists.”
“I challenge anyone to explain why the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from rogue interior designers carpet-bombing living rooms with ugly throw pillows,” Ohlhausen said. “Market dynamics will naturally weed out those who provide a poor service, without danger to the public.”
Amen and hallelujah!
But Ohlhausen was just getting warmed up. Under her new leadership the FTC has moved “aggressively” to eliminate “wasteful, unnecessary regulations and processes.”
“I welcomed the President’s directive, and we’re already working hard to achieve it,” Ohlhausen said in a statement last week. “The FTC will continue to pursue the right answer for consumers, but we will work hard to get there as efficiently as we can.
“We are focusing our resources where they will do the most good for the public and eliminating wasteful, legacy regulations and processes that have outlived their usefulness,” the director continued. “American taxpayers deserve and expect nothing less from us.”
Amen and hallelujah!
Among the substantive reforms underway are efforts to “eliminate unnecessary costs to companies and individuals” hit with complaints at the Bureau of Competition and the Bureau of Consumer Protection, as well as closing out older investigations “where appropriate.”
In addition, the entire agency has been directed “to work to identify unnecessary regulations that are no longer in the public interest.”
“Improving efficiency and productivity never stops in the private sector,” Ohlhausen noted. “Government should operate no differently.
Amen and hallelujah!
And at least one highly-influential member of Congress has taken note of the Acting Chairman’s efforts.
“These initiatives will eliminate unnecessary regulations and improve transparency, ultimately ensuring this agency can better focus on its core mission of protecting consumers and promoting competition," said Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, in a statement last week on six new agency reforms now underway.
“I commend Acting Chairwoman Ohlhausen, as she has wasted no time in implementing important reforms that that the committee has long championed."
Amen and hallelujah! Give us more of that old-time free-market religion.
Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and publisher of Nevada News & Views
Democrat Party Chair: No Place for Pro-Life Democrats, Get in Line With Abortion or Get Out
MICAIAH BILGER
The Democratic Party chairman made it clear late last week that pro-lifers are not welcome in his party anymore.
DNC Chair Tom Perez described abortion as a “fundamental value” Friday in response to a backlash from abortion activists, according to the Daily Caller. The pro-abortion group NARAL attacked DNC leaders last week for supporting a candidate with a pro-life voting record.
“Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said Friday in a statement. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state. That is why I will be convening women leaders from across the country in the next week on how we can make sure our Democratic candidates and elected leaders are living up to these fundamental values.”
The Democratic Party has not always been so extreme on abortion. The party, which prides itself in fighting for the vulnerable, once welcomed strong pro-life politicians who fought for the rights of unborn babies. Recently, however, it has been increasingly aligning itself with the abortion industry.
Last year, the DNC adopted a platform calling for taxpayers to fund abortions and support Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. Just a few pro-life Democrats remain in office.
The most recent uproar began with Heath Mello, a Democratic mayoral candidate in Omaha, Nebraska. As a state legislator, Mello supported several pro-life measures, including a bill to require that abortion facilities inform women of their right to request an ultrasound and a 20-week abortion ban.
Last week, several Democratic leaders, including former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, supported Mello at a sold-out “unity tour.” But when abortion activists found out that Mello has a pro-life voting record, they slammed him and the DNC.
“The actions today by the DNC to embrace and support a candidate for office who will strip women — one of the most critical constituencies for the party — of our basic rights [abortion] and freedom is not only disappointing, it is politically stupid,” NARAL President Ilyse Hogue said in a statement.
Mello quickly backtracked on his pro-life position.
Claiming that he remains “personally pro-life,” Mello told The Huffington Post Thursday that he will “never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care,” including abortions.
On Friday, Perez called Mello’s flip-flop “promising,” and urged all Democrats running for office to support abortion.
“It is a promising step that Mello now shares the Democratic Party’s position on women’s fundamental rights,” Perez said. “Every candidate who runs as a Democrat should do the same … Period.”
A few leading Democrats contradicted Perez, including Sanders and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Both Sanders and Pelosi strongly support the party’s pro-abortion position, but they also told news outlets this week that Democrats can be pro-life.
“The truth is that in some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue. I understand it. That’s what politics is about,” Sanders told NPR on Thursday.
Meanwhile, Illinois U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin backed up Perez, saying Democratic candidates must support Roe v. Wade and abortion, CNN reports.
The party’s allegiance to the abortion industry could hurt it even more as it continues to struggle with major losses in the November election.
Last summer, Democrats for Life Director Kristen Day said the party is potentially losing voters because it has shut out pro-life Democrats. Democrats for Life has been urging the party to “open the big tent” to pro-life Democrats. They estimate more than 23 million Democrats in the U.S. are pro-life.
Pew Research Center found last year that 28 percent of Democrats say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. Hispanic voters — a key voting bloc for the Democratic party — are deeply divided on the subject of abortion. Pew found that 49 percent of Hispanics say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, while 48 percent say it should be legal in most or all cases.
G’ day…Ciao……. Helen & Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2017/04/helen-moe-lauziers-issues-of-day-write.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment