Left Turn on Lamar

Seven Republican senators yesterday voted to keep Obamacare. While Susan Collins’ vote was not a surprise – as she voted against repeal in earlier years – it was shocking that six others joined her. Included in that list is our senator, Lamar Alexander.

The others were Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.; Dean Heller, R-Nev.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Rob Portman, R-Ohio. They joined all Democrats to defeat the amendment, which would have given Congress two years to devise a replacement to the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

Why in hell would Alexander, from a very red state, turn on us?

AP quotes him:

“I agree with President Trump that we should replace and repeal major parts of Obamacare at the same time. In 2015, we could have waited two years for relief, but we cannot now, when Tennessee insurance commissioner Julie McPeak says the state’s individual insurance market is ‘very near collapse.’ We have 350,000 Tennesseans who buy insurance in the individual market—those are songwriters, small businessmen and women, farmers—who are worried today that they may have zero options for insurance in just six months.

“In addition, I don’t think Tennesseans would be comfortable canceling insurance for 22 million Americans and trusting Congress to find a replacement in two years. Pilots like to know where they’re going to land when they take off, and we should too.

“My main concern is doing all I can to help the 350,000 Tennesseans and 18 million Americans in the individual market who may literally have no options to purchase health insurance in 2018 and 2019. However the votes come out on the health care bill, the Senate health committee has a responsibility during the next few weeks to hold hearings to continue exploring how to stabilize the individual market. I will consult with Senate leadership and then I will set those hearings after the Senate votes on the health care bill.”

Doesn’t sound like a very good explanation to me. If it’s near collapse, isn’t this the road to fixing it? That means pretty soon the 350K number he quotes will still be screwed when there are no insurance companies who want to do business here.

Does he know where he’s going? He appears to be a pilot who will circle the runway til he runs out of fuel. How many more hearings do we need? We’ve had seven years of this.

You always have to ask who is pulling his strings? Is it some lobby? Is money involved? What does he want from the President?

Alexander won reelection in 2014. He’ll be up in 2020. Does he plan on retiring? That may account for his straying from the base and listening to swamp critters.

Sessions Overlooks Secret Project

I have to agree that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been dragging his feet on draining the swamp. We in flyover land do not understand why Hillary Clinton’s email server issue, the Clinton Foundation, her uranium deal, the leaking and unmasking of people, to name a few, haven’t been looked at and pursued by the Justice Department.

Sessions cannot leave it to just he president to drain the swamp. He must engage, too. He’s a nice man, but he must get active.

The Conservative Treehouse does a good job of summarizing what the swamp is up to. The Lois Lerner/IRS mess highlights the swamp at its most devious.

As a result of a trillion dollar stimulus filled with scheme and graft; and as a result of Obamacare being similarly schemed in backroom deals and late night votes; President Obama was “shellacked” in the November 2010 election.

The White House didn’t see the 2010 defeat a flawed policy issue; rather as the entrenched ideologues they are, they saw the SCOTUS case “citizens united” as the principle tool used by the White House opponents to organize and fund political movements, ie. the tea party.

The Obama Team response to the 2010 Shellacking was to use the Dept. of Justice (AG Eric Holder) to weaponize the IRS and go after groups -like Tea Party Groups- organized under the financial umbrella of 501(c)(4)(5) donation structuring.

Years later, when the scheme was discovered – the White House denied knowledge (“not even a smidgen of corruption”), the DOJ feigned ignorance (“we don’t know why we got the millions of pages”), and the IRS began working overtime trying to hide the construct of the prior communication, planning and strategy.

The head of IRS tax exempt division, Louis Lerner, plead the Fifth.
Obama’s Chief of Staff Jack Lew was made Treasury Secretary (IRS is sub division of Treasury Dept.) where he was/is able to continue hiding information.
And Eric Holder constructed a team of DOJ lawyers to isolate, hide and manipulate the trail of evidence within the DOJ.

Just before the IRS targeting scheme was fully discovered/comprehended, and seemingly overlooked by any curious media enterprise, in February 2013 representative Maxine Waters said:

“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That’s going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.”

Against, the backdrop of information which proved the UniParty, both dems and republicans, benefited from the targeting of the Tea Party and oppositional forces; and with the full comprehension that Mitch McConnell and the republican leadership organized a post Citizens United strategy to work around their financial dependency on the electorate via Super-PACs; aren’t you just a little bit curious what the purpose was to assemble a data-base or “Secret Research Project“?

Lois Lerner’s and other IRS officials’ concerns about how to handle these donor lists came on the heels of an advisory from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to her and other IRS officials in late March 2012 of “an audit we plan to conduct of the IRS’s process for reviewing applications for tax exemption by potential section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations.”

March 2012 “audit we plan to conduct” was the IG notification for a pending investigation of IRS. Specifically of their handling of Conservative Groups filing applications and status.

We all know the result of that investigation was a finding the IRS was indeed targeting conservative groups – hence the IRS scandal erupted in the headlines.

However, far more troubling were later discoveries into the internal communications which suggested much more nefarious activity regarding the assembly of secret lists, the “Secret Research Project”.

An undertaking by both the Obama Administration and the DOJ together with the IRS began to surface.

The American Center for Law and Justice put it thusly:

“We know the IRS unconstitutionally targeted conservative groups. We know they illegally demanded, obtained, and held the donor lists of these conservative organizations. Now we learn that in 2012, the height of the targeting, the IRS was involved in a “secret research project” with this confidential, illegally obtained donor information.”

That’s more than a big deal. It’s potentially criminal.

The very fact that the IRS was using the phrase “secret research project” should give every American pause. But the fact that this project was conducted as part of a well-orchestrated effort to target and silence conservative Americans is utterly disturbing.

Now, again, ask yourself:

Why would Lois Lerner be delivering 21 CD-ROMs of data, lists of every American who joined arms with the Tea Party, to Eric Holder at the DOJ? And who specifically did she give it to?

WASHINGTON […] “After the Justice Department turned over the database to the Oversight Committee this month in response to a subpoena, the Justice Department says it was informed by IRS officials that it contains legally protected taxpayer information that should not have ever been sent to the FBI and it now plans to return the full database to the IRS,” a statement from the oversight committee said.

According to material obtained by the committee, the IRS sent the FBI “21 disks constituting a 1.1 million page database of information from 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

The transaction occurred in October 2010.

The data the IRS sent to the DOJ not only included the tax returns of every organization, it also included the “schedule Bs” of each of those returns. That means the DOJ received the list of every single person who contributed to one of the organizations. That’s much more information than just the IRS filings of the organizations themselves.

Are we to believe the DOJ just did nothing with that massive list of U.S. citizens who contributed to any political 501(c) group? Are we to believe those disks just sat in an office somewhere until the DOJ decided to return them?

Think about this and be intellectually honest.

Who authorized creating those CD-ROMs? Who, specifically, received them at the DOJ? What, specifically was done after their arrival? Who specifically was involved in all of this? We are talking about multiple layers of people in various levels of authorization.

This is actual evidence the DOJ was weaponized against a large portion of the American electorate. This reality is not in dispute. This actually happened. Yet, no-one has ever been held to account. Why?
If you wonder why the entire corrupt DC political class is openly in opposition to President Donald J Trump…. And if you wonder why President Donald Trump is expressing public frustrations with his Attorney General…. Well,… Perhaps Attorney General Jeff Sessions could begin by just asking these simple questions of his own organization.
Too much to ask?

How to Get a Free Paper the Socialist Way

Chris Plante is a radio host. He told this story about a certain senator:

Bernie Sanders and his wife Jane when they are in Washington DC, live in this house on Capitol Hill, ok? Part of their vast real estate empire. They’re like wannabe Trumps with their real estate holdings.

The next-door neighbor…their neighbor on Capitol Hill called the Washington Post and told the Washington Post that they were cancelling their Washington Post subscription because their very expensive Sunday Post stopped showing up. Not there this week, last week, the week before, then it was there one week but the week before it wasn’t delivered, so I’m cancelling my subscription to the post because your delivery person never gets to me. I’m paying for it but it never gets to me.

The Washington Post said, “Please, do not cancel your subscription to the Washington Post. We will investigate with the delivery person and we will get back to you.”

So the Post investigated. They got back to the person cancelling their subscription to the Post and they said, “Listen, we talked to the delivery person. Our delivery person claims has seen you come out of your house again and again and grab the paper on Sunday mornings. Immediately as the paper delivery person delivers the paper, they’ve seen you come out of your house and pick up the newspaper. So, sir, you are lying to us.”

[The neighbor] said, “Oh, ok, I’ve been coming out and picking up the paper?”

“Yes, and we got a description from the delivery person. You are an older man with gray hair, balding, and little round glasses…”

And the guy said, “I’m like, you know, in my 50s and I’ve got a full head of dark hair. But, my neighbor is Bernie Sanders.”

And Bernie Sanders has been coming out every Sunday morning and stealing his next door neighbor’s Washington Post.

First it was reported that the socialist was kicked out of a freaking commune for being too lazy. And now, Sanders is apparently stealing a newspaper from a neighbor who is actually shelling out the dough for it.

A Rival to Fox?

It’s time we have another conservative network on national TV. There is Fox, Fox Business and One America News. However, Fox has not been all that conservative of late.

They lost me during the last election, except for Fox & Friends and Hannity. They were so obviously against Trump, as the debates and Megyn Kelly showcased. Don’t tune in to Shepherd Smith if you’re a conservative either. He’s a Never Trumper, too, and full of snark and condescension.

Just the other day news came out that Rupert Murdoch, head of Fox, told his underling Roger Ailes to do what he could to get anyone elected except Trump. Early on they backed Jeb Bush, then Rubio. Murdoch said he’d prefer Hillary to Trump.

It was obvious.

One America News is growing, but it’s not there yet.

The following article from Bloomberg indicates that Sinclair Broadcasting may be gearing up to challenge Fox.

In the menagerie of television talking heads who have come to prominence advocating for Donald Trump, Boris Epshteyn is hardly the most memorable. He lacks Sean Spicer’s flair for the absurd, Kellyanne Conway’s gift at turning a phrase (“alternative facts”), Corey Lewandowski’s smoldering menace, Jeffrey Lord’s Zen inertia, or Sebastian Gorka’s staunch facial hair. Nobody has parodied Epshteyn on Saturday Night Live. Yet he’s perhaps the best surrogate to study if you want to understand where the Trump/TV industrial complex goes next.

Epshteyn, 34, was born in Russia and raised in New Jersey. On TV he exudes the ineffable air of a Trump insider, bolstered by family connection (he went to college with the president’s son Eric) and untroubled by an unorthodox résumé, involving law school and business ties to Russia. He talks with a thickly accented swagger that’s perfect for the current mode of televised political debate, which is one part pro wrestling match, one part spy novel. If you encountered Epshteyn at the Trump National Golf Club bar in Bedminster, N.J., you might expect him to hard-sell you on a real estate investment in the Urals or, failing that, a delicatessen in Newark.

Epshteyn briefly worked in the White House—the job ended not long after Politico reported that he’d gotten into a “yelling match” with a booker at Fox News—but since April he’s been employed as the chief political analyst for the Sinclair Broadcast Group. Located in Hunt Valley, Md., little-known Sinclair is the nation’s largest owner of broadcast TV stations. It has 173 of them, mostly in small markets (Sioux City, Iowa; Fresno, Calif.; Little Rock), but with several in larger metropolitan areas as well (Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, Washington). Whatever a particular station’s network affiliation—ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, or NBC—Sinclair viewers get a steady dose of conservative political commentary. Lately, Executive Chairman David Smith has begun assembling a kind of junior varsity squad of commentators and making unspecific murmurings about competing head-to-head with the senior lettermen and women at Fox News. To left-leaning viewers only just becoming aware of the company’s reach, Sinclair is positioned to flip a switch and turn those 173 stations’ newscasts—currently delivering bulletins on weather, school closings, and local affairs—into a cohesive network that pushes a Fox News-esque worldview of outrage and conflict into individual cities, counties, and towns.

Epshteyn shows how the arrangement might work. Three times a week he records brief video commentaries that are sent to Sinclair’s 65 or so newsrooms around the country. Station managers are required to weave them into their otherwise locally produced news shows—part of a larger daily slate of clips known internally as “must-runs.” In recent segments, Epshteyn has praised the Trump administration’s trade policies, encouraged states to cooperate with his Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, critiqued Democrats’ lack of a “coherent and authentic” message, and knocked other news outlets for their insufficiently admiring coverage of Trump.

The segments look like something you might see on Fox News—but only if you stripped away Fox’s high-end graphics, state-of-the-art studios, tailored wardrobes, perfect dental hygiene, and polished scripts. Epshteyn’s low-budget shtick, often delivered in front of a graphic image of the White House overladen with the stars and stripes, hasn’t wowed critics. One, David Zurawik, wrote in the Baltimore Sun that Epshteyn’s “commentary has come as close to classic propaganda as anything I have seen in broadcast television in the last 30 years.” But since Trump’s surprise victory last fall, liberal and progressive viewers have learned that in the current political-media climate, seemingly slipshod productions can suddenly hit it big.

Sinclair is likely to get larger yet. In May the company announced it was buying Tribune Media Co. for $3.9 billion. Among other assets, Sinclair would add 42 TV stations—including major ones in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago—if the deal is approved by regulators. The expansion wouldn’t have been possible if Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, hadn’t voted a few weeks earlier to ease a major restriction on local media ownership.

While future-of-media gurus have long predicted the death of broadcast TV, roughly 20 million U.S. households don’t subscribe to a cable, satellite, or streaming TV package and still rely on local stations for news and entertainment. Many more viewers, whether they know it or not, also consume Sinclair programming via their cable or satellite providers, which pay Sinclair to retransmit their content. The more the company grows, the more leverage it holds over networks, syndicators, advertisers—and politicians, who continue to lean heavily on local TV to get their message out. Last year, Sinclair generated $256 million of net income on $2.7 billion of revenue. (It also has $4 billion in debt.) But the recent growth has sharpened a conflict at the heart of the company, pitting Smith’s desire to build a national media powerhouse on par with the likes of Comcast Corp. and Walt Disney Co. against his tendency to penny-pinch and cut corners.

Critics of the Tribune deal, including Free Press, a Washington advocacy group, have accused Sinclair of trading sycophancy for favorable regulation. “It’s a scandal,” Craig Aaron, president and chief executive officer of Free Press, said in a May statement. “Sure looks like a quid pro quo: friendly coverage and full employment for ex-Trump mouthpieces in exchange for a green light to get as big as Sinclair wants.”

Sinclair’s CEO, Christopher Ripley, says the company has received no regulatory favoritism. Smith, who hardly ever gives interviews, declined to comment, but 19 current and former Sinclair employees spoke to Bloomberg Businessweek, many requesting anonymity out of concern about retribution. “Sinclair has managed to maintain a relatively low profile compared to other big network owners and consolidators in the media industry,” says former FCC Chairman Michael Copps. “David Smith is the most powerful person in American media you’ve never heard of.”

Smith, 66, grew up in the Baltimore area, the second-oldest of four brothers. Early in his career, during the 1970s, he founded Comark Communications, a manufacturer of TV transmitters, and was an active partner, according to an investigation by the Los Angeles Times, in Cine Processors, a bulk reproducer of pornographic films. In 1971 his father, Julian Sinclair Smith, an electrical engineer, launched WBFF, a small Baltimore station with no network affiliation, eventually adding two more independent broadcasters. In the early 1980s, with Julian in declining health, David joined the family business. He became its president and CEO in 1988. By the end of the ’90s, Smith had enlarged Sinclair’s portfolio to 59 stations. In 1995 he took the company public, wooing investors with an unadulterated management philosophy. “My father was too much of a visionary to care about profits,” Smith told Forbes. “What I wanted was purely to make money.”

As Sinclair expanded, it earned a reputation for austerity. According to one former employee at WBFF, Sinclair’s flagship station in Baltimore, for years workers needed to insert two distinct keys simultaneously—in a manner reminiscent of nuclear launch protocols—to gain access to the supply closet. “Frugality runs through this company’s DNA,” says Ripley, who succeeded Smith as CEO in January. He hastens to add that “we’ve invested heavily in the stations that we’ve bought.”

Over time, Sinclair kept running into an FCC rule that prohibits any single company from owning more than one station in a given market. Smith helped pioneer a workaround. In the early ’90s, Carolyn Smith, the family matriarch, became the majority owner of a company called Glencairn Ltd. When Smith needed to acquire or divest a station with geographic overlap, Glencairn would buy it, then sign a “local marketing agreement,” effectively turning control of the station back to Sinclair. Rivals complained that the arrangement was anti-competitive. In 2001 the FCC ruled that Sinclair had exercised illegal control over Glencairn and fined each company $40,000. But Sinclair continued to set up so-called sidecar stations, through which it owns or controls two or sometimes three outlets in one market. (Last year, Sinclair paid the FCC $9.4 million to settle claims, without admitting liability, that it improperly negotiated with distributors on behalf of same-market stations.)

“If we’re successful in creating meaningful, relevant controversy, we’ll be doing a community service”

For years, Sinclair shied from creating original programming. That changed in 2002, when it launched a news operation in Hunt Valley. Executives said “News Central” would create national reports that would be sent to its stations, saving money on duplicative newsgathering efforts. Sinclair executives also saw an opportunity to make local news more provocative. “Fox News Channel has demonstrated that people want a different level of truth,” Smith told Adweek. “And if you can do it nationally, why not locally? If we’re successful in creating meaningful, relevant controversy, we’ll be doing a community service.”

Controversies blossomed. In 2004 the Washington Post reported that 62 Sinclair stations planned to air—in prime time, just before the presidential election—a partisan documentary attacking Democratic nominee John Kerry. Protesters boycotted Sinclair’s advertisers and the company’s shares plummeted, forcing it to air a truncated version.

Eventually, Sinclair shut down News Central. But the company continued to create must-runs and centralized political analysis. Among its regular stable of contributors was the commentator Armstrong Williams, who during George W. Bush’s second term provided a series of sunny dispatches on the administration. Problem: Williams was getting paid by the government to promote its education policies, a fact that Sinclair failed to properly disclose to its viewers. The FCC fined it $36,000.

At the start of the 2016 presidential campaign, Sinclair churned out negative must-runs about Clinton and flattering pieces about Republican candidate Ben Carson. Like the Smiths, Carson has deep ties to Baltimore, and his campaign adviser was Armstrong Williams, Sinclair’s longtime commentator. Williams says Smith’s support for any particular candidate doesn’t depend on personal friendship or even party affiliation—he’s willing to work with any politician who understands the value of local TV and the burden of overregulation. “He deals with people who have an impact on his business. It wears no labels,” says Williams. “What he cares about are people who are friendly to the marketplace.”

After Carson dropped out, Sinclair aligned with Trump. In December, according to a report in Politico, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, revealed to a private gathering of bankers that the campaign had brokered a deal to give Sinclair’s reporters additional access to Trump on the condition that interviews would run without interceding commentary. Sinclair executives responded at the time that a similar offer was made to Clinton, who declined the overture.

After Trump won, the FCC voted in April to restore an arcane rule that paved the way for Sinclair to buy Tribune. (The deal is still under government review.) Sinclair’s expansion looks breezy compared with another media merger: AT&T Inc.’s pending bid for Time Warner Inc., the parent company of CNN. In July, according to the New York Times, White House officials were privately discussing how they could use the deal to tame CNN’s critical coverage of the president.

Sinclair has outlets in Arkansas and recently made a bid for Channel 3.

The sooner they take charge, the better.

Phone Them!

Today the Senate is scheduled to vote on whether to begin debate on the repeal of Obamacare. Yes, this is just a vote to start discussing it – not a vote on the bill itself.

And yet, some of our Senators don’t even want to do that!

Five of them are dubious, with Maine’s Sen. Collins already declaring she will vote no.

The vote, which is to begin about 1:15 Central Time, needs 51 to pass. At 52, Collins’ no vote already puts us just at 51. Should there be a tie, VP Pence would break it.

It is said that Senator McCain is flying from Arizona to vote. Good for him. That ought to shame the other senators, but, unfortunately, it probably won’t.

You can call the balking senators. Or, you can go to https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact and ask President Trump to sign an executive order making Obamacare applicable to all in Congress. Right now they have opted out of it. Hmm, I wonder why?

Here are numbers:

Senators: Jerry Moran, Dean Heller, Rob Portman, Lisa Murkowski, and Shelley Moore-Capito.

Sen. Lisa Murkoski blocking healthcare bill & refuses to defund Planned Parenthood. 202-224-6665

Sen Dean Heller: 202-224-6244

Sen Shelley M Capito: 202-224-6472
Sen Susan Collins: 202-224-2523

Sen. Mike Lee: 202-224-5444
Sen. Jerry Moran: 202-224-6521
Sen. Rand Paul: 202-224-4343
Sen. Rob Portman: 202-224-3353

Can’t hurt!

This Is What Obamacare Is

Why four senators can hold up repeal of Obamacare is infuriating and evil.

If repeal doesn’t occur, you can expect more stories like Charlie Gard’s. He’s the baby with a rare chromosomal disease in Britain who has been denied treatment by their medical rules and courts. His condition is one that could be greatly ameliorated in the U.S. Congress has granted him citizenship to allow this and President Trump has offered to help the little boy, too.

But the powers that be in Britain and the European Union will not allow it. Now too much time has gone by and the parents have given up on any life saving treatment.

Breitbart London reports:

The parents of baby Charlie Gard have withdrawn their legal bid to bring their son to the United States for treatment, slamming doctors and the courts for “time wasted”.

Speaking in court, the baby’s mother claimed her son was “not brain dead” and could have lived a normal life if he had been released for treatment which was held up by doctors, lawyers and bureaucrats.

Lawyer Grant Armstrong revealed that the parents – Chris Gard and Connie Yates – were withdrawing their appeal after seeing Charlie’s latest scans, saying that treatment should now end. The court was due to make a decision on Tuesday, but proceedings will no longer continue.

Mr Armstrong told Mr Justice Francis that “time had run out” for the 11-month-old baby, and the couple cried at London’s High Court as the announcement was made.

Speaking outside the court, father Chris Gard said: “Put simply, this is about a sweet, gorgeous, innocent little boy, born with a rare disease, who had a real, genuine chance of life and a family who love him so very dearly – and that’s why we fought so hard for him.

“We are truly devastated, to say the least, that following the most recent MRI scan of Charlie’s muscles, as requested in a recent NVT meeting with Dr Hirano, as Charlie’s devoted and loving parents we have decided that it is no longer in Charlie’s best interests to pursue treatment and we will let our son go and be with the angels.

“The American and Italian teams were still willing to treat Charlie,” he said, “but there is one simple reason why treatment cannot now go ahead – and that is time. A whole lot of time has been wasted.”

The parents had been fighting court rulings saying their son’s life support should be withdrawn so he could “die with dignity” for months.

“We are now in July,” noted Mr Gard. “Our poor boy has been left to lie in hospital for months, without any treatment, while lengthy court battles have been fought.

“Tragically, having had Charlie’s medical notes reviewed by independent experts, we now know had Charlie been given the treatment sooner he would have had the potential to be a normal, healthy little boy,” he said.

“Charlie has been left with his illness to deteriorate devastatingly to the point of no return.”

And that’s how it will be for us, if Obamacare isn’t repealed. We would be granting the government life and death decisions on us and our loved ones.

Euthanasia has made big advancements in the past two decades. Assisted suicide is now legal in Washington DC, California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Calling it death with dignity gives it a cover for the deathmongers. Dr. Kervorkian used to be the face of this issue. He was so creepy that he didn’t do the cause any good. Since his passing, it has advanced. It will continue to under Obamacare.

The “good” liberals who talk about protecting women’s rights, workers rights, etc. do not see any reason to protect your right to life. Indeed, they have gotten rid of it for babies with nationwide abortion.

They believe money shouldn’t get in the way of good health care, but look how it does. The British medical system didn’t want to throw away any pounds on a sick baby, so money does matter to them. It matters a whole lot and outweighs the child’s life.

We’ll see all of this if repeal fails. You’ll just have to hope you escape its clutches.

Typical Liberal

Letters to the editor today have two that are anti Trump and anti Republican. You see they save the most negative letters for Sunday, the day with the greatest circulation.

One chides Republicans for wanting to repeal Obamacare. Naturally he uses the argument that “If this bill passes, it will make clear that we are no longer, as some claim, a Christian country, at least not for the group in power.”

He trots out the very tired doing it for “the least of these, our brethren” who will no longer have health care argument.

Probably the writer is a Democrat and they use the theme of Christian hypocrisy a lot. Consider that the Democrats are 100% for killing babies in the womb and “death with dignity” aka euthanasia, it’s rich. So is the fact that Obamacare is collapsing now and the loss of coverage will be from its collapse, not any new GOP bill.

He continues that the repeal of Obamacare “is an eviction notice for millions in nursing homes, a potential death warrant for millions of critically ill, non rich folks, a foreclosure notice for many rural hospitals…but a $700 + billion windfall for those rich.” Obviously this person doesn’t look into anything very deeply.

Death panels are the ultimate eviction notice for the elderly. Remember how Obama did believe that after a certain age, even with quality of life good, a person should be denied an operation. He made that clear in an ABC townhall in which a daughter asked about surgery for her elderly mother. And, he cut Medicare extensively.

As to non rich folks, they were never denied care in the ER. Doctors must treat ailing patients who come to the hospital. The loss of rural hospitals can be directly laid at the feet of Obamacare and the expense for insurance companies and hospitals on these areas after the ACA. Ditto the decline in doctors. Why go through Med School hell if you can’t later pay off your student loans and have a profitable practice. But after all, rural areas aren’t his voters, are they?

A $700 billion + windfall? The insurance companies were so eager to get more money that they agreed to the Obamacare debacle before they knew how dearly it would cost them. Greed ran away with them.

I would venture to say that Christianity is probably not that important to the guy either. The Dems like to put every other religion first; that is, if they even believe in a God. Their convention platforms for the last two presidential elections seemed intent on excluding God.

These arguments are typical of liberals, though. Their strategy has always been to use the things they are doing, flip them and tack them on to their opponents. It has worked for a long time, but it’s not so dependable now.