Conservative News

Sunday morning talking heads

HotAir - 8 hours 51 min ago

This week’s round of Sunday gab festivals will hit a variety of topics, but the two biggies are the Senate healthcare bill and, of course, Russia, Russia, Russia. Is the latest effort to repeal and replace Obamacare dead before it gets out of the gate? And what did Barack Obama know about Russian “meddling” and when did he know it? Trump’s been tweeting up a storm about it so expect that to be brought up pretty much everywhere.

HHS Secretary Tom Price will be the big get for the healthcare bill. He’s on State of the Union and Fox News Sunday. Also on Fox there will be a discussion of all things Mueller. How impartial is he really, and is he a bit too cozy with James Comey? Face the Nation will hit the healthcare bill with Bill Cassidy and Pat Toomey. Also on FTN is Joe Manchin. Expect Manchin to play the usual Third Way role in the ongoing climate of violence.

Meet the Press has a mixed bag of goodies. Chuck Todd will be talking to Tim Ryan, Debbie Dingell, Ron Johnson and Bernie Sanders. Bernie may have a new set of questions to answer now that both he and his wife have lawyered up and are under an FBI investigation over something which (for once) has nothing to do with James Comey, Russia or Trump.

In addition to Tom Price, Jake Tapper will be featuring John Kasich and Adam Schiff on State of the Union.

The post Sunday morning talking heads appeared first on Hot Air.

Categories: Conservative News

Trump Believes Senate's "Not That Far Off" From Passing Healthcare Bill, But GOP Senators Say No

Townhall.com - 8 hours 52 min ago
It's going to be a long week for Mitch McConnell
Categories: Conservative News

City employee suspended for these two comments about a Muslim on Facebook

The Blaze - 9 hours 7 min ago

A city employee for Babylon, New York, has been suspended and is facing termination over two incendiary comments he made about a Muslim teenager on Facebook.

The comments from Andy Vita came after a video was posted on Facebook touting the accomplishments of Yasmin Zohny, an honor student at Lindenhurst High School. The 17-year-old is a Muslim and wears a traditional head scarf in the video.

Screenshots of the comments floated around on social media. The first read, “F**k you take it to f******* trash bag off your f***** head,” and the second read, “F**k this mutt.”

Vita, an equipment operator for the town, had no comment to a local news station after the messages were made public.

“This is one really sick person that needs to be held accountable for his actions,” town supervisor Rich Schaeffer told CBS New York. “There is going to be consequences to what you say. People have to realize when you’re posting something on Facebook of social media, it’s like putting it on a billboard on the LIE.” LIE is short for Long Island Expressway.

Schaeffer said that Vita would be “mandated to apologize in-person to this impressive young woman and go through sensitivity training so that we can determine the cause of the hate-driven anger he displayed in his posting.”

He also said he would be offering her an internship at the City of Babylon for the summer after she graduates. After the comments surfaced, the school community came to the defense of Zohny, who will attend The University of Texas at Austin.

Categories: Conservative News

Commentary: Why the Senate’s health care bill would throw gasoline on the Obamacare fire

The Blaze - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 19:00

On Thursday, Senate Republicans released their plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, titled the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017. Mostly crafted behind closed doors, there’s much in the massive bill that health care experts and members of Congress need to learn about the legislation, but even if it is assumed the majority of the bill will be an improvement on Obamacare, which has unquestionably failed to deliver quality health insurance at reasonable prices, a few key provisions in the Senate bill could prove disastrous for families, health insurance companies, and, eventually, even the Republican Party.

Since the Affordable Care Act was rammed through Congress in 2010, Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have been promising to replace the law with legislation that would halt or reverse skyrocketing health insurance premiums and deductibles. BCRA proponents claim it will accomplish this goal by cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and providing states with the ability to obtain waivers to opt out of costly mandates, among other provisions.

While it’s likely these reforms would on their own help to fix some of the defects of the current system, they don’t solve Obamacare’s fatal flaws: the preexisting conditions clause and community-rating requirements. In fact, one important change in the Senate’s bill would likely make those significant problems much worse.

Like in the House’s American Health Care Act, the Senate bill would not allow states to pass laws allowing health insurance companies to deny coverage to anyone who applies, including uninsured applicants with costly preexisting conditions. Unlike the House bill, the BCRA also forces states to mandate health insurance companies charge the same prices to people applying for coverage, regardless of health status, a concept called community rating. The House bill permitted states to apply for waivers that would have allowed insurance companies to charge more under certain conditions.

Requiring health insurance companies to accept all people, regardless of their health status, and mandating that they charge the same amount of money for identical coverage disincentivizes healthy consumers, especially young people, from buying health insurance, because under such a scheme, healthy people have very little reason to purchase insurance until they actually need it. These provisions, which were first ushered in under Obamacare, effectively turned “insurance” into nothing more than a health insurance giveaway for many irresponsible consumers, and insured families and individuals ended up footing the bill by paying increasingly higher premiums and deductibles.

In their attempt to limit the number of people who might abuse these policies, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats created the wildly unpopular individual mandate, which forced consumers to purchase qualified health insurance plans or else pay a government-imposed fine, which is now $695 per adult or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher.

In addition to avoiding huge cost increases caused by people waiting to get sick before buying insurance, the penalty was also thought to be an important part of encouraging young healthy people, who don’t use many benefits, to buy into the health insurance market, helping to offset the high costs associated with consumers buying insurance with preexisting conditions. However, the plan didn’t work nearly as well as the ACA’s proponents said it would. Premiums and deductibles were so high that many healthy people chose to pay the penalty to save money or invested in cheaper alternatives, such as health care sharing ministries.

The BCRA could prove to be disastrous because not only does it continue the preexisting conditions and community ratings requirements, it also eliminates the individual mandate, one of the few Obamacare provisions incentivizing healthy people to buy health insurance.

Absent additional legislative changes providing solutions to these problems, it’s likely the Better Care Reconciliation Act will make health insurance even more expensive than it is now, throwing gasoline on the Obamacare fire and providing an escape hatch to Democrats eager to flee Obamacare’s immense shadow.

Categories: Conservative News

Celebrities spread more lies about Planned Parenthood in latest attempt to stop defunding effort

The Blaze - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 18:35

One of the key measures included in the House and Senate bills to replace the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act is legislative language that would help to keep federal funds from going to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions. To protect the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that currently go to Planned Parenthood from being diverted to other women’s health clinics, a number of celebrities have joined in a series of campaigns designed to convince people to fight on Planned Parenthood’s behalf.

The most recent effort was spearheaded by Now This, which published a video featuring numerous high-profile Hollywood figures calling for people everywhere to call their senators to tell them they should continue funding Planned Parenthood.

Celebrities in the video include Judd Apatow, Jon Hamm, Jennifer Lawrence and Brie Larson.

“This is nothing more than a blatantly political attempt to do whatever it takes to attack women’s health and rights and take care away from the people who need it most,” the celebrities said.

At one point in the video, left-wing activist Gloria Steinem alleged, “The right to decide our own bodily future is the most basic of all human rights.”

“If Congress cuts funding to Planned Parenthood, millions of people will be left without access to birth control, life-saving cancer screenings and other basic care,” the celebrities said. “Many of them will have nowhere else to go for the health care they need.”

These dire warnings make it sound as though any effort to divert Planned Parenthood funding is going to destroy millions of women’s lives, but the truth is almost none of the arguments made by the video’s participants are factual.

First, there’s nothing “blatantly political” about the effort to defund Planned Parenthood. Tens of millions of people believe life begins before Planned Parenthood does and do not want the organization receiving taxpayer funds to indirectly support the 330,000 abortions conducted by the group each year.

Second, the celebrities’ arguments hinge on the assumption that life doesn’t begin sometime before Planned Parenthood conducts its abortions, because if it does, then the argument that defunding Planned Parenthood takes away rights would be utterly ridiculous.

Third, the evidence is overwhelming that Planned Parenthood’s operations are not geared toward “women’s health,” unless you define “health” as providing contraception and abortion. As Abby Johnson — a former Planned Parenthood director who now operates And Then There Were None, a group dedicated toward helping abortion clinic workers leave the industry — noted in January in The Hill, “there are over 13,000 non-abortion providing Federally Qualified Health Centers that provide whole health care to women and their families. And that number doesn’t include the tens of thousands of private and group physicians that accept government subsidy programs like Medicaid.”

“If Planned Parenthood were defunded, the $528 million in taxpayer dollars they … would be re-allocated to FQHCs — facilities that can actually care for all of the needs of women,” Johnson wrote.

“Planned Parenthood claims to offer a wide-variety of services, but they actually fall short in many areas,” Johnson added. “For instance, not a single Planned Parenthood facility provides mammograms, and Planned Parenthood employees say that they do not provide prenatal care.”

Moving Planned Parenthood funding to clinics that help women but don’t provide abortions is exactly what Republican leaders in Congress have repeatedly called for.

“We don’t want to effectively commit taxpayer money to an organization providing abortions, but we want to make sure that people get their coverage,” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said at a town hall meeting in January, reports the Catholic News Agency and Lifesitenews.com.

“We believe that this can better be done by putting that money in federal community health centers,” Ryan added. “They are vastly bigger in network, there are so many more of them, and they provide these kinds of services without all the controversy surrounding this issue.”

(H/T: Twitchy)

Categories: Conservative News

Supreme Court retirement watch Bingo is all the rage

HotAir - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 18:01

The annual summer ritual has begun. For most Americans it involves a trip to the lake, a cookout or some fireworks. But in the world of political punditry it signals the beginning of the Supreme Court recess and the question of whether or not any of the justices are preparing to bail out on the job and go spend some well deserved time with their families. This year, according to CNN, the smart money is betting on swing justice Anthony Kennedy.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the man who so often determines the outcome of the most controversial Supreme Court cases, is himself the center of brewing speculation.

Will he stay or will he go?

The rumors have swirled for months and the 80-year-old justice has done nothing either personally or though intermediaries to set the record straight on whether he will step down.

Helping drive the speculation, dozens of Kennedy’s former clerks are traveling to Washington to participate in a private clerk reunion that occurs regularly — and many of them wonder if it will be their last chance to meet with him while he is still on the bench.

Sources close to Kennedy say that he is seriously considering retirement, but they are unclear if it could occur as early as this term.

Aside from his age, it’s tough to say why all the focus is on Kennedy. We’re so used to hearing stories out of the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN these days that are based on “anonymous sources” that nothing surprises us much anymore. But this is one case where CNN is coming right out and telling you that this particular report is based on … no sources at all. There’s not one report of Kennedy saying he’s seriously considering retiring on the record. Or off the record. Or of anyone else claiming to have heard him say it. He’s just one of the more likely suspects because of his age and the fact that the Notorious RBG has made it fairly clear that she’s running up the high score record on the Supreme Court pinball machine and will be putting some space between herself and the next possible challenger. She’s also the only one who has had any serious health concerns, and she has thankfully put them behind her by the Grace of God.

But whether it were to be Kennedy or Ginsburg who retired, the effect would be almost the same. Ginsburg would be more of seismic shock because she always votes with the liberal block. But at least you know what’s coming. Kennedy is the wildcard, as he’s proven on so many occasions. Fairly solid on Second Amendment issues, but a frequent disappointment to social conservatives. If he were to be replaced with somebody on Trump’s remaining short list from the campaign, many of the unpleasant surprises would be gone. (Which I brought up in detail earlier today in a column about property rights and his latest disappointment on that front.)

But we have the system that we have for better or worse. Kennedy earned his spot in that seat and the Constitution says he can keep it for as long as he likes. If he’s ready to go at his age, nobody could criticize him for it (though many on the Left will anyway) and all we can do is thank him for his service and wish him a happy retirement with his family. I think Gorsuch showed us that under the current rules the Democrats won’t be able to stop Trump’s next nominee. But until Kennedy actually says something himself it’s still business as usual.

Original article edited to correct the spelling Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s name.

The post Supreme Court retirement watch Bingo is all the rage appeared first on Hot Air.

Categories: Conservative News

North Korea Says Otto Warmbier Isn't the Biggest Victim in His Case

Townhall.com - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 17:00
The fact that Warmbier died suddenly in less than a week after his return to the U.S. in his normal state of health indicators is a mystery to us as well."
Categories: Conservative News

Poll reveals Americans are changing their minds about Russia — liberals won’t be happy

The Blaze - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 16:30

A new poll shows most voters are growing tired of the allegations of collusion with Russian officials made against the Trump administration.

According to the most recent Harvard-Harris Poll, 56 percent of voters said they want Congress and the media to move on from the Russian investigation. Sixty-two percent of respondents said they believe the investigations will lead to the end of the “Russia inquiry.” Thirty-eight percent said they believe Trump will eventually be impeached.

Additionally, 64 percent of the voters in the poll said they believe “the investigations into Russia and President Trump” are “hurting the country.”

The survey was conducted June 19-21 and included responses from 2,237 American adults who say they vote. When asked which political affiliation they “usually” identify with, 35 percent of respondents said Democrat, 30 percent said independent, 29 percent said Republican, and 6 percent said “other.”

Interestingly, the poll also shows 52 percent of respondents said they have a favorable view of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who scored the highest of all the political figures asked about. Mike Pence finished second, with 47 percent of voters saying they have a favorable view of the vice president. Trump finished third (45 percent) and his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton finished fourth (39 percent).

The poll represents a remarkable shift from just one month ago, when Harvard-Harris found 75 percent of voters supported former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s investigation into the possibility Trump’s campaign team may have colluded with the Russian government to win the election.

After a rocky May, Trump’s approval ratings have steadily improved as Democrats have been unable to show any evidence of their claims about Trump and Russia. The Real Clear Politics average of polls — which includes polls that survey all Americans, not just voters — showed Trump’s approval rating throughout most of May and early June to be below 40 percent, bottoming out at 38.6 on June 13. Since then, Trump’s average approval rating has consistently risen. It’s currently sitting at 40.6 percent.

Categories: Conservative News

Remember that California single payer plan? Yeah… never mind.

HotAir - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 16:01

Earlier this month we reported that California was in a bit of a quandary. They were bound and determined to have a single payer health plan for their citizens no matter what the Republicans wanted to do on the national level. And by golly, they got a plan put together in the state legislature and moved it out of committee, despite the fact that it was going to cost more than the total GDP of the state.

Then it made it out onto the floor of the Assembly. As Leslie Eastman of Legal Insurrection tells us, the cold light of day seems to have given some of the legislators second thoughts and the plan has gone back on the shelf.

I recently reported that California Senate Bill 562, which would establish a single payer healthcare system within the state, had recently cleared a major hurdle by passing through a state legislative committee.

However, the measure died upon entering the California Assembly.

A high-profile effort to establish a single-payer healthcare system in California sputtered Friday when Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) decided to shelve the proposal.

Rendon announced late Friday afternoon that the bill, Senate Bill 562 by state Sens. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), would not advance to a policy hearing in his house, making it all but certain the measure will not be acted upon this year.

“SB 562 was sent to the Assembly woefully incomplete,” Rendon said in a statement. “Even senators who voted for SB 562 noted there are potentially fatal flaws in the bill, including the fact it does not address many serious issues, such as financing, delivery of care, cost controls, or the realities of needed action by the Trump administration and voters to make SB 562 a genuine piece of legislation.”

Really? The bill was “woefully incomplete?” Which part, exactly? I’m just taking a shot in the dark here, but it might be the bit about “financing, delivery of care, cost controls.” You mean you couldn’t figure out those details once it came out of committee?

While you consider that news, keep in mind that this is what the liberals in not only California but around the rest of the nation want to push on the entire country. And that attitude remains even after the dismal day when none other than the Washington Post threw in the towel and said that it might just sink the fiscal ship.

The government’s price tag would be astonishing. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) proposed a “Medicare for all” health plan in his presidential campaign, the nonpartisan Urban Institute figured that it would raise government spending by $32 trillion over 10 years, requiring a tax increase so huge that even the democratic socialist Mr. Sanders did not propose anything close to it.

Single-payer advocates counter that government-run health systems in other developed countries spend much less than the United States does on its complex public-private arrangement. They say that if the United States adopted a European model, it could expand coverage to everyone by realizing a mountain of savings with no measureable decline in health outcomes, in part because excessive administrative costs and profit would be wrung from the system.

In fact, the savings would be less dramatic; the Urban Institute’s projections are closer to reality. The public piece of the American health-care system has not proven itself to be particularly cost-efficient.

Much of this is a problem of scale. The smaller the population of a given country or state and the more they are already used to socialist style control of all their assets, the easier it is to pull off something approaching single payer. (But even in Canada, with their tiny population and devoted socialist climate they’ve run into serious delivery problems, wait times and a hard time finding doctors.) When you crank it up to even the size of a state like California the balloon bursts quickly.

But fear not, California, because I HAVE A PLAN. Your problems will soon be a thing of the past. You know how west coast liberals are always preaching the evils of giving “tax cuts to the rich” and how the wealthiest among us should pay their fair share? Surely that applies at the state level also. With that in mind, I invite any California legislators to steal this idea from me at no cost and introduce the “Movie Star Single Payer Subsidization Act of 2017.”

Under this bold plan, every Hollywood Star, Writer, Director, Producer or Studio executive who earns more than two million dollars in a single year will generously forfeit all income in excess of that amount to fund a single payer health care system for the state. On top of that, the movie studios will be even more helpful. The profits from all films which exceed 25% of the production costs will go into the same fund. Just working off the back of a napkin here it seems to me that they could recover a nice chunk of that $400B this year alone with room to spare.

That may sound drastic, but I know what big fans of Barack Obama you all were for the last eight years, so let’s keep in mind what he said. At some point, you’ve made enough money, right?

The post Remember that California single payer plan? Yeah… never mind. appeared first on Hot Air.

Categories: Conservative News

CNN makes false connection between Trump adviser & Russia — then it majorly backfires in their face

The Blaze - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 15:57

CNN was forced to issue a retraction late Friday after they made an unfounded connection between a Trump adviser and Russia.

On Thursday, CNN published a potentially explosive story that linked Trump transition team member Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment bank. The story was reported by CNN investigative reporter Thomas Frank.

Talking Points Memo describes the details of the story:

As CNN reported, Scaramucci met with Kirill Dmitriev, the fund’s chief executive, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland just four days before Trump’s inauguration. Congressional investigators reportedly want to know if they discussed lifting U.S. sanctions against Russia—a policy shift for which Dmitriev has strenuously advocated, according to CNN.

A spokeswoman for RDIF told CNN that they did not, though she declined to describe the conversation. Scaramucci also told the network that “there is nothing there.”

Dmitriev “came over to say hello in a restaurant, and I was cordial,” Scaramucci said in an email to CNN.

But by late Friday night, CNN had scrubbed the story from their site and removed its links from the network’s social media accounts. CNN’s editors replaced the story with an editor’s note explaining the story’s removal.

In the note, CNN’s online editors said Frank’s story didn’t meet CNN’s editorial standards. The news outlet also issued an apology to Scaramucci.

“On June 22, 2017, CNN.com published a story connecting Anthony Scaramucci with investigations into the Russian Direct Investment Fund,” the note read. “That story did not meet CNN’s editorial standards and has been retracted. Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologizes to Mr. Scaramucci.”

On Saturday morning, Scaramucci responded to news that CNN had scrubbed the story and said he accepts the network’s apology.

“.@CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on,” he wrote.

.@CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on. https://t.co/lyVajCKNHx

— Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) June 24, 2017

An archived version of CNN’s story can still be viewed here.

Categories: Conservative News

Mattis to decide on delay in transgender enlistment

HotAir - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 14:31

The various branches of the United States military have once again asked for a delay in beginning to accept the enlistment of new recruits who “identify” as transgender. A previous request for a two year delay was shot down, but now the new Secretary of Defense, General James “Mad Dog” Mattis will be considering a six month pause. This has the usual list of suspects in the SJW community up in arms, but the various service branches are still pleading their case. (Associated Press)

Military chiefs will seek a six-month delay before letting transgender people enlist in their services, officials said Friday.

After meetings this week, the service leaders hammered out an agreement that rejected Army and Air Force requests for a two-year wait and reflected broader concerns that a longer delay would trigger criticism on Capitol Hill, officials familiar with the talks told The Associated Press.

The new request for a delay will go to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis for a final decision, said the officials, who weren’t authorized to discuss the internal deliberations publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

No word yet on how Mattis is likely to go on this one, but more time for a decision of this magnitude can only be a good thing. The military is already dealing with the fallout from the Obama administration about letting current personnel “come out” as transgender and continue serving and we have very few details as to how that’s been going. The ban on current service members was only lifted last summer and we’re only talking about a couple of thousand people currently in the military tops. It also was not openly supported by the military for a variety of reasons. You’ll recall that when Ash Carter made the announcement last June he was alone at the podium. Such major policy announcements are usually made in the company of at least the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs if not the heads of some of the military branches, but Carter stood by himself and Gen. Joseph Dunford did not attend.

In the civilian world, most of us don’t particularly care what anyone else wears or calls themselves, at least not until it gets to the point where the personal privacy of others is infringed. (Remember… you will be made to care.) The military, however, is a different world. There are considerations there which go beyond questions of which uniform you will wear or how you will cut your hair in keeping with the grooming standards. The usual issues of bathroom, locker and shower use are amplified since such facilities are generally far more limited in military camps, but that’s not the worst of it either. Will males in the army and Marines who “identify” as females be exempted from combat duty? The reverse isn’t as much of an issue because everyone still has to meet the minimum physical requirements for combat, but this is only one of many complications awaiting us if we force the military to treat the concept of gender confusion as the status quo.

One might expect to see a bit of a different direction coming from Defense under the Trump administration, but there’s no way to know for sure. The President has been largely silent on the issue and I don’t see anything on record in terms of Mattis either. Stay tuned, I guess.

The post Mattis to decide on delay in transgender enlistment appeared first on Hot Air.

Categories: Conservative News

Watch: Huckabee slams Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton for ‘childish’ attack on GOP health care bill

The Blaze - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 14:31

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) heavily criticized Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate minority leader, for their dramatic attacks on the Republican Senate leadership’s health care bill.

On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released the Republican leadership’s plan to replace the Obama-era Affordable Care Act. The bill, titled the Better Care Reconciliation Act, would scale back numerous Obamacare mandates, regulations and taxes, but would keep much of the basic framework in place.

Within 30 minutes of the 142-page bill being released, Schumer, who had accused Republicans of keeping the bill a secret as recently as the day before its release, hammered the legislation, calling it “meaner” than the legislation passed in the House of Representatives in May, the American Health Care Act.

“This #Trumpcare bill strips away protections from the ppl [sic] who need them most in order to give a tax break to those who need it least,” Schumer wrote on Twitter almost immediately after the bill was released.

“Frankly, every senior in America should read the fine print of this #Trumpcare bill; it looks like American seniors could be paying WAY more,” Schumer added, along with several other critical posts.

Schumer also said the bill is “meaner” than the AHCA and “heartless.”

This morning the @SenateGOP released their #HealthcareBill – it proves #Trumpcare won’t put Americans’ health first. pic.twitter.com/riN6m0igss

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 22, 2017

Not to be outdone by her fellow Democrats, Clinton said on Friday the Republicans are now the “death party.”

“Forget death panels,” Clinton wrote on Twitter. “If Republicans pass this bill, they’re the death party.”

Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill, they’re the death party. https://t.co/jCStfOaBjy

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 23, 2017

On Saturday, Huckabee appeared on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” where he criticized Clinton, Schumer and other Democrats for attacking the health care bill.

Huckabee said Clinton’s rhetoric makes the parties “look silly” and shows “they don’t have an argument.”

“And when rhetoric goes to that level, I think it makes the parties look silly,” Huckabee said. “It sort of reveals they don’t have an argument, they can’t discuss the merits of a piece of legislation or a proposal, so they’re reduced to the most childish form of political rhetoric, which is to say, ‘You’re a bad person. You’re going to kill somebody.’ It’s so over the top; it’s just absurd.”


Huckabee said Schumer’s response was “carefully crafted” and that it was “amazing” he released such a negative statement so quickly after the bill’s release.

“I think the guy is clairvoyant,” Huckabee quipped.

“The curtain needs to come down on this theater, because the play is getting tiresome,” Huckabee added.

Watch the latest video at <a href=”//video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>

Categories: Conservative News

California Universal Healthcare Bill Taken Off Life Support

Townhall.com - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 14:30
Given how incomplete many bills that pass out of Sacramento are, Rendon's assessment says a lot.
Categories: Conservative News

Anderson Cooper tries to hit Trump over Russia ‘hacking’ — completely annihilates Obama instead

The Blaze - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 13:32

On his broadcast Friday, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper highlighted what he believes is a lack of interest from the Trump administration over the threat that Russia poses to the United States.

A Washington Post report revealed Friday that Russian President Vladimir Putin himself ordered Russian operatives to interfere in the U.S. presidential election between then-candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The report also said that former President Barack Obama took modest actions against Russia, which ultimately weren’t as big as they should have been because Obama feared it would appear that his administration was trying to manipulate the outcome of the election in favor of Clinton.

But Cooper said President Donald Trump and his administration “continue to be blasé about it,” before playing a clip of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway and CNN host Alisyn Camerota sparring over what Trump is doing to combat the growing cyber threat that Russia poses to the Western world.

Cooper went on to claim that as a candidate, Trump treated the threat of Russian hacking as a “joke.”

Hammering home his point, Cooper later said that Trump and his administration continue to show a lack of interest in Russia. In fact, Cooper said Trump appears to only care about the Russian hacking story so to clear his name of any wrongdoing. Democrats allege Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian operatives, but the claims have proved thus far to be unfounded.

“The common thread seems to be a lack of interest in the actual threat,” Cooper said.

"The common thread seems to be a lack of interest in the actual threat." @andersoncooper is #KeepingThemHonest https://t.co/QPIaC45MKw

— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) June 24, 2017

But many people found the assertion of Cooper’s monologue, namely that Trump is only interested in Russia so to clear his name, a bit out-of-touch.

After all, it was then-President Barack Obama, the former leader of the Democratic Party, who chided Mitt Romeny during a presidential debate in 2012 over Romney’s belief that Russia is the greatest geo-political threat to the U.S.

Obama said at the time:

Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize Al Qaeda as a threat because a few months ago, when you were asked what’s the biggest geo-political threat facing America, you said Russia.

Not Al Qaeda, you said Russia. The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because you know, the Cold War has been over for 20 years.

As fate would have it, Romney turned out to be correct and now Democrats talk about the threat Russia poses each and every day on cable news shows.

Twitter users emphasized the fact that Democrats were first to dismiss Russia as a threat in response to Cooper’s monologue, in addition to the fact that the mainstream media didn’t chide Democrats for dismissing Russia then:

Things not said about the last president in 2012. https://t.co/x6aQA6zQEu

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) June 24, 2017

— said Mitt Romney, 2012

— Hube (@ColossusRhodey) June 24, 2017

According to Obama, Romney didn't know what he was talking about.
Obama thought the biggest threat to America was climate change.#Russia pic.twitter.com/2k6aQlOfZ6

— CNN is ISIS (@StrokerAce90) June 24, 2017

You mean the threat that the Obama Admin literally ignored because they thought Hillary was going to win? Good one!

Categories: Conservative News

In Murr V. Wisconsin, SCOTUS deals another blow to the Fifth Amendment

HotAir - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 13:01

A number of sane people around the commentariat have been up in arms over the recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court in Murr v. Wisconsin. And with very, very good reason. We’ve dealt with this case here before as it’s played out through the lower courts, but as a refresher it deals with the situation encountered by Donna Murr and her siblings in Wisconsin. The family owned two small parcels of land along the St. Croix River. They had a cabin on one of the lots and the adjoining property was left vacant as an investment. But when they attempted to finally sell the vacant lot in 2004 they learned that the state had changed the rules on them, making it impossible to sell the land to anyone other than the county unless they combined the properties and relinquished the entire package.

The property in question had been valued at $400K. The county – the only entity legally entitled to buy it – offered them $40K.

Because the state, through changes in laws which did not apply when the family acquired the land, had completely gutted its worth, the Murr family sued to be properly compensated under the Takings Clause. With this week’s decision, those hopes are dashed. Eric Boehm at Reason explains what this is doing to the rights of property owners.

When governments issue regulations that undermine the value of property, bureaucrats don’t necessarily have to compensate property holders, the Supreme Court ruled Friday…

The ruling could have implications that go well beyond the 2.5 acres of land in Wisconsin.

Several western states filed amicus briefs in the case on behalf of the Murr family (as did the Reason Foundation, which publishes this blog). Though states like Nevada and Arizona did not have a direct interest in the Murrs’ ability to sell their vacant land, they saw the case as having important implications for conflicts over federal lands.

Many state governments own contiguous lots and large bodies of water near areas owned by the federal government (military bases, national parks, etc). If those government bodies are allowed to merge contiguous lots for regulatory purposes, the federal government could impose severe restrictions on state land and wouldn’t have to pay consequences, warned Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University who authored the amicus brief on behalf of those western states.

What we are seeing here is a continuation of what I still maintain is possible the worst ruling from the Supreme Court in the history of the nation, Kelo v. City of New London. That was the dark day when the Supremes ruled that the idea of “public use” in the Takings Clause could be reinterpreted into a Reverse Robin Hood scenario by defining it as the far more ambiguous “public benefit.” When that case was decided in 2005 the principal dissent was written by O’Connor, but in a separate dissent, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the following:

Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.

This ruling is yet another weakening of the Takings Clause. And the reason I say this is a continuation of Kelo is that you need only look at who is voting on these rulings. In Kelo, the 5-4 decision was delivered by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer with the tie-breaking vote cast by Kennedy. Now, In Murr, the 5-3 decision came from Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan, (who replaced Stevens under Obama) and Sotomayor (who replaced Souter under Obama) with both the tie-breaking decision and the written opinion coming once again from Kennedy. Anyone seeing a pattern here?

It was 5-3 because Gorsuch wasn’t involved with the original hearing and didn’t vote. But even if he had, the Fifth Amendment still would have lost 5-4 yet again. It’s not enough just to keep hold of the seat that Justice Scalia occupied. Kennedy is unreliable in too many instances when given a choice between more power for the government over the individual or less. The other four liberals are lost causes, apparently never having seen a case of bigger government which they couldn’t celebrate. We need a real majority on the Supreme Court with conservative, small government principles in their hearts or these erosions of fundamental rights will continue.

The post In Murr V. Wisconsin, SCOTUS deals another blow to the Fifth Amendment appeared first on Hot Air.

Categories: Conservative News

Canadian Christian school under attack for teaching ‘offensive’ Bible verses

The Blaze - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 12:45

On June 16, The Blaze reported the Battle River School Division, located near Edmonton, Alberta, had asked the K-12 Cornerstone Christian Academy to cease using two “offensive” Bible verses in its school handbook. Now, Cornerstone Christian Academy teachers and administrators are being told they must stop studying or reading any part of the Bible that could be considered offensive.

The Cornerstone Christian Academy is listed as an “alternate school” and receives some government funding.

According to a report by CBN News, Lauri Skori, the Battle River School Division chair, informed the chair of the Cornerstone Christian Academy, Deanna Margel, “any scripture that could be considered offensive to particular individuals should not be read or studied in school.”

Skori also said “any teachings that denigrate or vilify someone’s sexual orientation” should be banned.

The two Bible passages that sparked the dispute were 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:19-21.

The 1 Corinthians passage states, in part, “Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

The passage from Galatians reads, “The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.”

Margel said the demand, which could lead to Cornerstone being removed from the district and losing public funding if not met, challenges the school’s freedom of religion.

“We’re talking about freedom of religion, but we’re [also] talking about freedom of expression,” said Margel, according to the CBN News report. “We need every single word there to challenge us, to call us to greater understanding. It’s just so important.”

Categories: Conservative News

Report: Joe Biden explodes at controversial hedge fund manager over comment on son Beau’s death

The Blaze - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 12:20

Fox Business reported on Saturday that former Vice President Joe Biden faced off with hedge fund manager Bill Ackman over comments he made about Biden’s late son, Beau, who passed away in 2015 after a battle with brain cancer.

The report alleged that the incident occurred during a private dinner event in May, when Biden claimed that his heart wasn’t into a 2016 presidential run because of unresolved feelings over the death of his son.

“I’m sorry,” Biden allegedly told those in attendance at the VIP dinner, after being overcome with emotion over Beau’s death. “I’ve said enough.”

Ackman, in response, purportedly snapped back, “Why? That’s never stopped you before.”

One unnamed source claimed that Biden that night was in “rare form.”

“Biden was in rare form,” the insider said of the incident. “I can’t believe it has never leaked out.”

After Ackman made the alleged comments, Biden was said to have turned around to a dinner attendee nearby and asked, “Who is this a**hole?”

Taking it further, Biden allegedly addressed Ackman directly.

“Look, I don’t know who you are, wisea**, but never disrespect the memory of my dead son!” Biden was overheard saying to Ackman in response to his comments. Insiders claimed that Ackman attempted an apology, but Biden wasn’t having it.

He purportedly responded, “Just shut the hell up.”

A spokesman for Ackman acknowledged the claims, and in a statement to Fox Business denied “the idea that there was an argument or altercation between Joe Biden and Bill Ackman.”

The spokesman added, “Bill had a great time at the dinner and enjoyed spending time with the former vice president.”

Fox did note, however, that the spokesman did not deny that Biden had spoken to Ackman in the manner that he was alleged to have done.

Categories: Conservative News

Tucker Carlson uses facts to brutally shut down gun control advocate who favors gun confiscation

The Blaze - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 11:57

Fox News host Tucker Carlson took on a gun control advocate on his show Friday over Seattle’s recent gun tax and its apparent failure to quell gun violence, and instead, backfire completely.

In 2015, Seattle implemented a “gun violence tax,” which aimed to reduce the amount of gun violence in its city limits. The tax imposed a $25 tax for every firearm purchased and a $.05 tax for every round of ammunition bought within the city limits. The tax has hurt small business owners in the city that own gun stores and has even forced many of them to lay off workers, move to the suburbs or completely shutdown altogether.

But new reports indicate the law hasn’t worked the way it was intended to. In fact, violence has increased in Seattle and murders have doubled this year. Carlson said it proves the law has backfired. Gun control advocate Mark Glaze disagreed.

Glaze said the purpose of the law was to help fund studies of gun control and not to end gun violence like Carlson allegedly claimed. However, Carlson said that isn’t what he claims.

“I’m merely noting the obvious, which is the gun tax didn’t make the city any safer,” Carlson said. “What’s the point of any of this…if it doesn’t make the city any safer? That’s the whole point. Right?”

Glaze responded by accusing the “gun lobby” of preventing the federal government from allocating funds to study gun violence, so Seattle created their tax in order to do it themselves. But Carlson wanted Glaze to address the real facts of the matter.

“Again, the whole point of all of this…is to reduce gun violence — and it doubled [in Seattle],” Carlson said. “So it’s hard to take you or people like you seriously if you don’t let the data drive your conclusions. And the date here are really clear, crystal clear. This didn’t work, so why would you still support it?”

Glaze again reiterated his claim that no person in Seattle thought the gun tax would drive down gun violence, but Carlson quickly called out him out.

“That’s not true,” the Fox host interrupted. “They didn’t say ‘we’re gonna end all gun violence,’ but they said it would make it a safer city — and the city got more dangerous.”

Glaze then tried to move the conversation along to discuss control measures that he alleged the public “wants.” He said that instead of a gun tax, Seattle should implement a ban on “semi-automatic” rifles with “high capacity” magazines, alleging that gang members “most often” use them to commit acts of gun violence while drawing a connection to the weapon used to nearly assassinate House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) earlier this month.

But once again, Carlson was quick to throw a time-out on the field.

“But your numbers are just wrong,” Carlson replied. “Actually, a relatively small percentage of murders in this country are committed with rifles of any kind. They’re almost all committed with handguns.”

“So I know these guns may look scary, and they send you guys into a frenzy because they’re terrified-looking, but they don’t actually drive the problems. So again, you’re wrong,” he explained.

Given the number of firearms in America — which is believable to be several hundred million — Carlson said the “truth” of the matter is the only way gun control advocates will get what they want is through gun confiscation.

Glaze suggested the federal government buyback Americans’ guns in order to dramatically reduce the number of firearms in the country similar to what Australia did. But Carlson noted that Australia’s gun “buyback” wasn’t voluntary and was actually gun confiscation.

“That’s not true, that’s not true,” Carlson said. “They didn’t buy them back. They confiscated them by force. You had no option. It wasn’t voluntary. If you tried that in this country, you would have a civil war in about 10 minutes.”

“Is that the plan? To take people’s guns by force?” Carlson questioned.

Glaze responded by alleging two-third of American gun owners would willingly give up their firearms in a government buyback.

“Good luck with that, Mark,” Carlson quipped.

Categories: Conservative News

California “bans” state travel to even more states over LGBT issues

HotAir - Sat, 06/24/2017 - 11:31

Ah, California. Is there nothing you can’t make more ideological with every passing week? In the Golden State’s latest effort to prove that they’re really not interested in being part of the rest of the nation, California’s state government – which viciously opposes President Trump’s travel ban – has expanded their own travel ban. Of course, it only applies to state funded travel, and rather than restricting traffic with terrorist hot spots, it blocks airline tickets to states which it deems insufficiently “woke.” In this case, that would be Texas, Alabama, Kentucky and South Dakota. (Fox News)

California’s attorney general blocked state-funded travel to Texas and three other states on Thursday in response to what he considers anti-LGBT rights laws enacted this year.

Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra added Texas, Alabama, South Dakota and Kentucky to the list of places where state employee travel is restricted. Lawmakers passed legislation last year banning non-essential travel to states with laws that discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. North Carolina, Kansas, Mississippi and Tennessee are already on the list.

California taxpayers’ money “will not be used to let people travel to states who chose to discriminate,” Becerra said.

California didn’t invent this idea, though they’re clearly working on being a leader in the travel ban field. New York enacted a ban on “non-essential” state funded travel to North Carolina in 2015 in response to their so-called bathroom bill. Of course, we later learned that was mostly a stunt, and any travel, be it for SUNY school purposes, “fact finding” trips or most anything else was quickly deemed to be “essential” and little actually changed.

That will likely be the case in California as well. As the linked article indicates, state law already provides immediate exceptions for a variety of reasons, including any and all contracts which were signed prior to 2017. Also, Fresno State is scheduled to play the Crimson Tide this fall. Anybody think they’re going to forfeit that game over this bill? Color me skeptical.

Hey, here’s an idea. How about if everyone gets in on this game? Maybe all of the states with a more sensible approach to immigration and law enforcement can ban state funded travel to all of the states that have sanctuary cities in them. States with no state income tax can ban travel to those which levy such taxes because of their anti-freedom agenda. And why stop there? Hell, let’s just have all of the states that voted for Trump ban travel to states that voted for Hillary and vice versa. Wouldn’t that be great?

No.. that would be stupid. The states have various reasons to do business with each other which sometimes require travel. (Though in the era of internet technology and video conferencing, voters in all states would be justified in asking why people are still taking so many trips in person and running up all those bills.) We have different states which each make their own rules because that’s how the founders planned it. They even insisted that the states respect each other’s individual choices, giving us a good hint in that direction by including the Full Faith and Credit Clause. We were never intended to be uniform nor to start these pissing contests over differences between state laws. If any of those laws are unconstitutional they will be struck down in due order through the normal process. If they hold up under challenge then the states are doing as they wish within the limits of the law and it’s not California’s job to reprimand them.

Of course, there’s a quicker solution available which could probably satisfy everyone. Calexit anyone? We allow California to secede and also split off New York City as their own state at the same time (separate from the upstate region) and then we won’t even have to change the flags. Let’s get this ball rolling, people!

The post California “bans” state travel to even more states over LGBT issues appeared first on Hot Air.

Categories: Conservative News
Syndicate content

Click on this logo to make a call to the Strongsville GOP hotline. Google Voice will call you back at the number you enter and will connect you with us. Or, call us direct at 440-794-1GOP.