Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are glad to know that Hillary Clinton really thinks tens of millions of Americans are ‘deplorable.’ They also rip the Clinton campaign for its ever-changing story about Hillary’s health episode on Sunday. And we react to North Korea banning sarcasm.
A Texas congressman is fighting back against the Obama’s administration’s unilateral amending of the U.S. Civil Rights Act in the area of sex discrimination, calling the administration’s actions unconstitutional and a gross misrepresentation of what the law intended.
In December 2014, then-Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department would apply the protections against sex discrimination in Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to cases of alleged sex discrimination over “gender identity” as well.
Earlier this year, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the government was mandating that all public schools and federal buildings accommodate people ion restrooms and locker rooms based on their expressed gender identity.
Federally funded health programs are also in play, and health care professionals and insurers are now subject to liability for refusing to perform or cover gender reassignment procedures.
Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, is fighting back against the administration’s actions, both in opposition to the changes Obama is making to the law and especially the manner by which the changes are happening.
“They don’t have that authority,” said Olson, who says the Constitution is clear about laws are to be created or amended in the U.S..
“Article I is very clear. It has ten clear words it starts with. ‘All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.’ It’s clear. The administration’s actions take away the power of Congress and put that in the White House. That’s wrong. That’s against the Constitution. That’s why I introduced H.R. 5812,” said Olson.
The bill, also known as the Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2016, focuses on two key areas: restoring lawmaking and law-amending power to the legislative branch and opposing the Obama administration’s policy content as well.
While providing background information and supporting evidence for the bill, H.R. 5812 lays our these objectives:
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to prevent the executive branch from unilaterally
rewriting Federal civil rights laws by enacting or implementing
any policy or undertaking any enforcement action that is based
on construing the term ``sex'' or ``gender'' to mean ``gender
identity''; and
(2) to ensure that gender identity is not treated as a
protected class in Federal law or policy without the
affirmative approval of the people's representatives in
Congress.
Olson says he’s gotten quite a bit of heat from LGBT activists and others who support their agenda. He flatly rejects their allegations that this bill stems from his hatred of gays or transgenders.
“Liberals are saying, ‘Pete’s attacking these people.’ That’s a bunch of hooey. This is all about our Constitution, protecting our Constitution, taking that oath I spoke and making that action,” said Olson. “The administration does not have the power to redefine sex in federal civil law. They did that and this tries to stop it,” said Olson.
Olson says it’s perfectly obvious that lawmakers decades ago did not intend for transgenders using restrooms and showers counter to their biological sex.
“It just means man or woman. What they’re doing is trying to expand that sex is actually sexual stereotype, gender identification, the termination of a pregnancy. That is not what was in the law that was passed,” said Olson.
While Olson is appalled by the administration’s actions, he says it’s not surprising given Obama’s track record.
“It’s very consistent with President Obama’s actions the whole time he’s been president. Transgender bathrooms is another continuation of laws coming from the White House. His executive amnesty is another example of laws coming from the White House. Congress has to assert it’s authority for the Constitution and take that back to Congress. That’s exactly what H.R. 5812 does,” said Olson.
He says if Obama wants to change the law, he and his allies should ask Congress to act.
“If you want this to happen, work with us. We will pass law,” he said.
Does that mean Olson would support amending the Title IX to expand the definition of sex through the legislative process?
“No. My vote will be heck no. But I want to have that vote. That is our job. Our job is to actually pass laws,” said Olson. “Have an up or down vote. I’ll vote that thing down because I think it’s against the Constitution. But I want that vote, not something coming from the White House,” said Olson.
Olson says time is of the essence to move on this bill since Congress will not be in session long this fall and the Obama directives have been in place for months. He says he hasn’t heard a word from GOP leaders about his bill, but he’s fine with that.
“They have not said anything, but that’s a good thing. If it’s bad, they’ll kind of push you back. They seem to be saying, ‘Pete, it’s your ball. Run with it. If you get enough votes – 218 – then we can talk about bringing it up on the floor,” said Olson.
“My job right now is to go, go, go get people on board, get 218 so leadership can bring it up. Let’s vote on it and put a brake on the White House,” said Olson.
One of the chief architects of Donald Trump’s tax plan says the GOP nominee would place America on a course for explosive economic growth while Hillary Clinton’s vows of huge spending increases would lead to a recession and either higher taxes on the middle class or huge amounts of new debt.
“We’re cutting rates. She’s raising them,” said Trump economic adviser Stephen Moore. We’re helping small businesses. She’s hitting them with more taxes. We have an orientation toward more investment. She is taxing investment. So, this is a night and day comparison.”
During her convention speech, Clinton was very clear that she believes bigger government is the way to jump start the economy.
“In my first hundred days, we will work with both parties to pass the biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs wince World War II,” said Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.
Those investments would be used, in part, to provide free college tuition, forgive existing student loan debt and raise the minimum wage.
She was equally clear how she plans to pay for that.
“We’re going to pay for every single one of them,” said Clinton. “Wall Street, corporations and the super-rich are going to start paying their fair share of taxes.”
Moore, who is also a senior economic contributor at FreedomWorks and a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, says those grand promises carry a pretty harsh reality, starting with the mount of spending needed to enact those policies.
“By my count, she’s got about a trillion dollars in new spending. That’s a lot, given we already have a $19 trillion national debt, soon to eclipse $20 trillion,” said Moore.
He says Clinton’s tax plan can soak the rich all she wants, but she still won’t have enough revenues.
“The idea that you’re going to get all the money for free college, free day care, free health care, free everything that you’re going to be able to get the money for that from the top one or two percent is just silly,” said Moore.
That reality, says Moore, would leave Clinton with two horrible options.
“The problem is you’re going to have to go after the middle class. If you want these massive new entitlement giveaways to the middle class, the fiscal reality is that you’re going to have to tax the middle class to pay for it or you’re going to have to rack up massive new amounts of debt,” said Moore.
Besides suggesting Clinton’s math is fatally flawed, Moore says the sitting president is proof positive that the government spending huge sums of money does not result in job creation.
“Government spending doesn’t create jobs. That should be one enduring lesson of the Obama years,” said Moore. “This has been the flimsiest, weakest recovery since the 1940’s, so over 60 years.”
While noting that some government spending is needed, the Obama stimulus wasted nearly a trillion dollars with almost nothing to show for it.
“The money just went down a rat hole. We don’t even know what happened to a lot of the money. Some of it went to failed companies like Solyndra. A lot of it went into programs like food stamps and so on. They were just giveaways to people. They had no positive economic impact at all,” said Moore.
Recent Commerce Department reports show the U.S. economy growing at just one percent. Moore says that small growth also raises red flags about the Clinton plan.
“That’s pathetic. That’s pitiful. It;s the reason Americans are so angry. When you’re at one percent growth, you’re not getting wage growth. You’re not getting the job growth you need. People are actually losing income relative to inflation,” said Moore.
“Fragile is the word I would use to describe this economy. Can you think of anything dumber to do with a fragile economy than to have a massive tax increase?” said Moore.
Moore is one of the key figures in crafting the Trump tax plan, alongside fellow supply-siders Larry Kudlow and Art Laffer. He says Trump is committed to using the tax code as a means to revive our sputtering economy.
The signature item would be to slash the corporate tax rate from the highest in the industrialized world, currently at 35 percent, down to 15 percent. Moore says that would convince U.S. companies to stay here and encourage major expansion and hiring at businesses of all sizes.
“We are going to apply this 15 percent tax rate not only to the big corporations but every one of the 25 million small businesses in America today will get a 15 percent tax cut. And they will get to immediately expense and write off all their capital purchases. I believe, if we do this, we’re going to see one of the biggest economic booms we ever saw,” said Moore.
Personal income tax rates would also drop under the Trump plan. Moore says that was among the clear “marching orders” from Trump to his team of economic experts.
“Number one, he wanted to make sure it didn’t blow a big hole in the deficit, so we’ve got the cost way down,” said Moore. “Second, he said, ‘I don’t want this to be for millionaires and billionaires like me.’ He said, ‘I really want it to be oriented towards middle class workers who are really struggling to pay their bills and are financially stressed out.”
Moore says all families would see lower taxes.
“Rich people would pay about a third of their income in federal taxes. That’s down from a rate of over 40 percent today. Most of the tax breaks on the individual side are for the middle class workers. Depending on the circumstances of a middle class family, they will save anywhere from $1,500 to $2,000 a year.
In the final analysis, Moore, who is admittedly partial to Trump, says the GOP nominee has a plan to bring the economy roaring back.
“Over the next five years, with a Donald Trump presidency, we will get four percent growth annually for five years. That’s a 24 percent increase in the U.S. economy when you take the compounding effect. That’s like adding another Texas to the U.S. economy,” said Moore.
However, he says Clinton’s plan would bring even harder times on the Americans who can least afford it.
“I really do worry she would plunge us into another recession. Given the financial status of so many families, I think half of our families are not financially or economically prepared for a recession. It could be gut-wrenching. It’s too big a risk to take to be talking about massive new amounts of spending, taxes, regulation and borrowing,” said Moore.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are glad some of the worst names in media won’t be moderating debates this fall and they are pleased to see Chris Wallace on the list. They also sigh as more evidence emerges showing the entanglement of the Clinton Foundation and the State Department while Hillary was secretary. And they shudder as the speech police invade the Univ. of Nebraska but cheer as the Univ. of Missouri suffers in big ways after surrendering to campus radicals last semester.
Just one month after Hillary Clinton accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, her convention bounce is over, her disapproval numbers are at record highs and women voters are one of the biggest reasons why.
In a new survey commissioned by ABC News and the Washington Post, just 41 percent of Americans see Clinton favorably while 56 view her as unfavorably. Her numbers are still better than Republican nominee Donald Trump, who is saddled with a 63 percent disapproval rating. Just 35 percent have a favorable opinion of him.
While not good, Trump’s numbers are staying largely consistent over the past month, ticking up one percentage point in approval since early August. Clinton however has dropped several points. In early August, 48 percent of Americans looked at her favorably while 50 percent saw her unfavorably. In just four weeks, Clinton has fallen from a two point gap to a 15-point chasm.
And the biggest reason may be a considerable drop among women. Just after the Democratic convention, the ABC News/Washington Post poll showed 54 percent of women had a positive impression of Clinton, with 43 percent not thinking highly of her. Now, 52 percent of women voters see Clinton unfavorably and 45 percent approve of her.
“It is the lowest rating that she has had in terms of women liking and supporting her for an entire year,” said Independent Women’s Forum Senior Fellow Gayle Trotter. “This is something that has been building awhile. Her general unpopularity rating has taken a real hit in the last three weeks.”
Trotter says Clinton’s drop is largely to her own dishonesty and new revelations about her email server and conduct while secretary of state.
“If you look at the onslaught of revelations about her emails, about the representations that she made to media outlets like Chris Wallace on her emails and what James Comey, the director of the FBI, said about their investigation of her emails and her email server, this is something that is repeatedly in the public eye, and it is cannot help but effect Americans’ view of her,” said Trotter.
Being underwater ought to be especially concerning to women, according to Trotter, given that Clinton has repeatedly touted herself as a history-making female candidate.
“Hillary has gone on and on about playing the woman card to the extent that her campaign, as a donation tactic, was even offering to send out to her donors an actual ‘woman card’ in appreciation for donations to her campaign that she’s taking such a hit among the group, that her campaign believes should be fully in in her corner,” said Trotter.
And Trotter believes there is more room for Clinton to slip in the minds of women and other voters.
“Hillary has not only been dishonest about her time in office and not only was incompetent in the carrying out of her duties, but that she has continued to try to mislead the American public about those two matters. Certainly she has room to fall even further,” said Trotter.
Trump’s numbers with women are even worse. Only 33 percent of female voters see Trump favorably, while 65 percent don’t like him. However, Trump did gain seven points in favorability among women throughout August.
In addition, dropping favorability numbers for Clinton do not equal lost votes. So is there a way for Trump to appeal to women and win their votes come November? Trotter sees a golden opportunity for him on national security, pointing out the Obama administration’s policy of emptying out the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and the multiple terrorist attacks carried out on American soil during Obama’s term.
“I think that Donald Trump is strong on this issue and that is a natural way that (new campaign manager) KellyAnne Conway can help him target his message, particularly to women, that he understands this issue, that his policies would be a break from the dangerous and ineffective policies of the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton would only reflect a third term of President Obama’s losing strategy on national security and keeping the American homeland safe,” said Trotter.
“If he’s particularly reaching out to women’s groups, that is something that would be authentic for him to talk about and it would be something that would resonate with American women,” said Trotter.
Trotter also believes Trump is benefiting from the advice and expertise of Conway, who is a longtime pollster and excels in political messaging.
“I think we are seeing the slight uptick in his popularity reflecting her being brought into the campaign. With her at the helm of reaching out to these groups (women and minorities), there is a huge possibility that he could really increase his popularity among women enough that it would make a difference in this election,” said Trotter.
However, she says even the most effective campaign strategy faces a tough road because all of that messaging gets filtered through one of Clinton’s strongest allies – the media.
“They have really become a SuperPAC for Hillary Clinton. They have been able to go after Trump on every single, possible front that you can possibly imagine,” said Clinton.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America react to Donald Trump’s sudden trip to Mexico. They also discuss the revelation that taxpayers paid for Hillary Clinton’s private email server. And they express their disgust over would-be Reagan assassin John Hinckley, Jr. being allowed to go free.
The IRS inspector general says the tax collection agency is aware of more than one million illegal immigrants stealing Social Security numbers of citizens to file tax returns, yet has done virtually nothing to stop the practice and has not even notified the Americans victimized by identity fraud.
According to reports, the IRS has been aware of the problem for at least five years but virtually nothing has been done to combat it. A test program to combat the fraud was scrapped and was deemed to be thoroughly insufficient anyway.
Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va, won his seat in Congress by toppling sitting House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014, running on illegal immigration and fiscal discipline. He says this is a textbook case of the government ignoring one of its fundamental responsibilities.
“I used to teach ethics for 18 years at the college level, along with economics. You can’t make up a case study that is this crazy. I think I would give the students a migraine if they had to piece together the logic of everything that’s wrong here,” said Brat.
Brat says there’s really only one explanation for the IRS ignoring this problem.
“The politics are inescapable. At the top of the tickets we have Trump, who is going to be tough on illegal immigration, and Hillary Clinton, who wants a 500 percent increase in some of the categories of illegal immigration, the refugee crisis, etc.,” said Brat.
He concludes this dereliction is the result of politics based in part on his own encounter with embattled IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at a congressional hearing.
“Koskinen was in front of us and I asked him, ‘If you know that you have illegal aliens and they’re asking for tax refunds or asking for any tax status, would you do anything about it?’ He said no. I was stunned,” said Brat, who says Koskinen made the same assertion in Senate testimony.
“When he says it’s not my job to report illegal, much less unethical behavior, we’ve got a problem,” said Brat.
Brat says that sort of brazen defiance shows an agency that does not remember who it works for.
“Your ethical duty is to the American people. If they are now in harm’s way because their information has been stolen, my goodness, you have to let your constituents know and they failed that test as well, much less going after the illegals, which I’m sure would be at the bottom of the priority list,” said Brat.
Brat also cites Koskinen for disregarding the rule of law, but he adds that problem extends throughout the Obama administration.
“The premise in the first place has to be that you believe in the rule of law. So illegal immigrants who offend while they’re here, violating the law. So it’s two strikes and then this kind of a breach that effects the American people directly is strike three. We need to take action and we know President Obama won’t. We know Loretta Lynch won’t,” said Brat.
That leaves the job to other prominent leaders.
“It’s up to leadership on the Republican side. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell need to step up and represent the American people when their rights are being violated and when their own personal, private financial information is being hijacked by folks who mean to do them harm. There’s no other conclusion,” said Brat.
Just prior to the current summer recess, members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus introduced a “privileged resolution” demanding a House vote to impeach Koskinen. Brat says this latest episode makes removing Koskinen a no-brainer.
“It’s a softball one foot in diameter going one mile an hour over home plate. If you can’t hit that, you’ve got problems. I hope leadership takes it up and runs with it because it’s the right thing to do and the American people will applaud us,” said Brat.
But he says leadership remains reluctant to pursue impeachment of Koskinen despite a laundry list of serious allegations.
“We’ve had a little pushback from our own leadership. I do not understand why. People across the United States are upset enough with the IRS targeting of conservatives and ethical breaches in the past. They’ve withheld evidence. They’ve destroyed evidence. And now you get stories like this,” said Brat.
“For some reason, leadership doesn’t want to fight on this one. I think they just don’t want to rock the boat before an election, but elections are about serving the American people,” said Brat.
Brat admits impeachment is not a tool to be wielded lightly, but he says it is thoroughly warranted in Koskinen’s case.
“There are high standards and you’re going to set a precedent, but this is a pretty good precedent. I don’t think you need to be Harvard Law to understand this is a pretty good precedent when you have the head of the IRS involved in so many unethical and illegal activities at the same time,” said Brat.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are thrilled with the electoral bludgeoning endured by Alan Grayson in the Florida Senate primary. They also slam the IRS for not only knowing about illegal immigrants stealing the Social Security numbers of citizens and doing nothing about it but not even informing the victims their identities were stolen. And they expose the hypocrisy of ESPN, as the liberal sports network lauds Colin Kaepernick for refusing to stand for the national anthem but heaps scorn on Tim Tebow for trying to play professional baseball.
A new documentary sheds light on the horrors families in Belgium are enduring after 15 years of legalized euthanasia and those behind the film say it is meant as a warning to other nations not to follow this path and explain how euthanasia is not the ultimate act of autonomy as it’s proponents claim.
Titled “The Euthanasia Deception: We Are All Vulnerable,” the documentary looks the big picture impact on health care in Belgium and also chronicles several heartbreaking stories of people who believed the callousness of the culture with euthanasia robbed them of time with their loved ones.
“The culture has become very accepting of euthanasia,” said Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and executive producer of “The Euthanasia Deception.”
“People are just giving up on life. Because euthanasia is an option, they are just saying, ‘I have cancer. I have early-stage Alzheimer’s or early-stage dementia.’ They ask for euthanasia and they qualify,” said Schadenberg.
Schadenberg says the documentary is a splash of cold water in contrast to what the mainstream media says about euthanasia.
“This video is warning the world that what you’re hearing from the general media is not true. What happens in the culture when you allow for euthanasia or assisted suicide is, it changes the attitude in general towards dying in one way, but in the second way towards causing the death of somebody,” said Schadenberg
He says the Belgian society’s value of life is also plummeting as a result, for the elderly, the sick and the disabled.
“If you have any sort of sickness or disease that is considered somewhat serious, even if it’s in its earliest stages, you’re seen as better off dead. The cultural shift as occurred,” said Schadenberg.
As euthanasia gains in cultural acceptance, Schadenberg says there are more and more cases every year.
“The latest data showed about 4.6 percent of all deaths, which is about 4,000 euthanasia deaths in Belgium alone, which is a very tiny country,” said Schadenberg, who says assisted suicide states in the U.S., such as Oregon and Washington also see an increase in euthanasia deaths year after year.
He says the numbers may be even higher in the U.S. since the doctor administering the lethal drugs is also responsible for reporting the death as an assisted suicide and some don’t do that in all cases.
Euthanasia is specifically giving doctors the right to terminate a life. Assisted suicide, which is legal in a handful of U.S. states, gives doctors permission to prescribe lethal doses of drugs that the patient then administers to themselves.
The argument to the contrary, of course, is that euthanasia and assisted suicide give the patients full control over the time and means of their own death, that it is the ultimate act of autonomy and a valid option in avoiding excruciating pain.
Schadenberg says this is one of the biggest myths involved with euthanasia. First, he says a huge chunk of euthanasia deaths in Belgium are not decided by the patients or their families.
“The studies show that in Belgium about one-third of all assisted deaths are done without requests,” said Schadenberg.
Even when the patients or loved ones are involved in the deliberations, Schadenberg says it is not really autonomy.
“It’s not exactly an autonomous act. When we’re talking about euthanasia, we’re talking about somebody else lethally injecting you,” he said. “Even in assisted suicide, you’re talking about the decision of the doctor to be directly involved with the provision of a lethal dose.”
“The whole autonomy thing has a lot to do with selling it to our culture. Our culture is all about autonomy. This act is about somebody else having the right in law to cause your death,” said Schadenberg.
And he says he wants all other societies to see the effects of euthanasia because you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.
“The problem is by the time you’re asking whether this was or wasn’t a good idea, by then it’s become so culturally ingrained that’s it’s almost impossible to convince people that what they did to their mother or what they did to their friend was not an acceptable thing to do,” said Schadenberg.
In “The Euthanasia Deception,” the filmmakers feature numerous interview with families in agony over the deaths of their loved ones to euthanasia. One man told the story of his mother being euthanized while in fine physical health but asked and received a lethal dose because she was depressed.
Another tells the story of his grandmother unwittingly consenting to the termination of her husband’s life.
“The doctor said to his grandmother, ‘Do you want to keep your husband comfortable?’ She said, ‘Of course, I want to keep my husband comfortable.’ In no way did she realize what he was actually meaning by that was euthanasia,” said Schadenberg.
The corrosive culture even hurts families who haven’t lost a loved one. One man interviewed is the father of an adult special needs daughter.
“He remembers being asked on several occasions just going for a walk with the family and he’s got his daughter in the wheelchair. People come up and say, ‘Why didn’t you have your daughter euthanized?’ That’s a shocking cultural thing to happen to you,” said Schadenberg.
He says the documentary has a powerful takeaway for all viewers.
“Is it ever right for someone else to be directly involved with causing your death? And the answer is no,” he said.
More information on “The Euthanasia Deception” can be found at www.caringnotkilling.com.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome new polls in Pennsylvania and Ohio showing the GOP looking better in both Senate races. They also slam Sec. of State John Kerry for saying he wishes the media wouldn’t cover terrorist attacks so much because then people might not know about them. And they react to former Texas Gov. Rick Perry signing on to do “Dancing with the Stars.”