Trump budget increases Medicare funding $4 trillion in next decade

After seeing dozens of news reports about “devastating cuts” to Medicaid, you might think the Trump budget reduces the amount of spending on Medicaid. In reality, the proposed spending for Medicaid would increase by $4.7 trillion during the next decade.

Welcome to the world of baseline budgeting. Forecasters assume spending will go up in future years, and if a new budget still spends more – but less than what was planned previously – the media gets to use the “cut” word and liberal politicians get to claim “this budget will kill people.”

I have a huge problem with the way the media deals with this. But it really should be expected, since most are in total support of the liberal agenda – and the goal to destroy the Trump administration. You’ll have to ask them why they refuse to take just a few moments to provide the real information, instead of dishing out not even half the story.

Let’s say you take over leadership of a large sports apparel marketing department. Your budget this year is $1 million, and your predecessor’s budget assumed a $100,000 increase in spending every year for the next 10 years. Eventually, the budget would be $2 million per year.

You’ve been hired to run the department more efficiently, while still providing a quality product and good service. You work with your team and come up with a budget that increases $50,000 each year for the next 10 years. Your budget will be $1.5 million per year 10 years from now.

After you release your budget plans and inform the media, the financial reporters announce you’re cutting the marketing budget to the tune of $500,000 over the next decade. How absolutely absurd is that?

That’s exactly what the mainstream media does. And the liberal politicians love it. They absolutely love to cry wolf, claiming the Republicans and the Trump administration have no problem with kids and adults dying with “no access” to health care. Right from the playbook.

ABC News is the only mainstream media outlet to attempt to explain this. That said, they still used the term “artfully evasive” when referring to Budget Director Mick Mulvaney’s real-world, easy-to-understand explanation. But still, right there in the story, they admit…

So, yes, Medicaid spending would increase by $4.7 trillion over a decade.

I guess they figured they had to explain things in a “AP Fact Check” article.

Below, is Mulvaney’s tutorial during a press conference earlier this week.

Wondering how bad it is? Just take a look at media headlines concerning Trump’s budget. Keep in mind, the proposed budget* does not cut funding dollars much at all, if anything. The federal government spends more and more every year.

The above are just a few of the examples. In my world, if you spend more money next year than you did this year, you’re increasing your budget. Sure, many will claim it’s “more complicated” implying you’re too stupid to understand. Many will state it’s important to look at budget numbers as a percentage of GDP. Many will state it’s important to consider inflation. Fine, do that if you wish, but stop claiming there are cuts. Be honest, and say the budget reduces the previous administration’s rate of growth. We’re spending more than previous years, just not as much as proposed previously.

Don’t let the media and Washington insiders brainwash you with claims of “devastating cuts” to any program when the federal government’s budget for those programs continues to grow.

* The Trump Administration did remove the budget [PDF format] from the White House website. Do you blame them? In the document they clearly show increases in spending, but the media ignores the facts. I don’t blame them for pulling it, why bother even publishing it if the media will lie about it?

Criminal illegal aliens kill people

Not all, but some do. Sanctuary cities. Light enforcement of the law – if any enforcement. This is a problem, and President Trump really seems to be the only one to call these atrocities for what they are. From the Denver Post.

Ever Valles, 19, was arrested on Oct. 20 in Denver and held on multiple charges including possession of a weapon, vehicle theft and eluding.

ICE tagged a “detainer” notice on Valles, with the expectation that when he was released, ICE would be notified by Denver jail officials. ICE agents would then be at the jail to take Valles into federal custody.

Before October, Valles was a known gang member and juvenile offender.

… ICE believed him to be a “known gang member whose gang history is documented in the Colorado gang database.”

A Colorado Bureau of Investigation arrest report for Valles says he received 2 years with the Colorado Department of Youth Corrections for a drug case in 2014.

Let’s make something really clear. You don’t get two years in youth corrections for “smoking a little weed.”

This criminal illegal alien is no “dreamer.” There are hundreds of thousands of these criminal illegal aliens in the country, and due to the political correct hogwash, they frequently roam free. Even though Immigration & Custom Enforcement (ICE) put a detainer on Valles, Denver didn’t care one bit. They released him on Dec. 20, giving ICE a total of 26 minutes to come pick him up.

Denver jail officials said Friday they sent notification of Valles’ impending release by fax to the local ICE office at 11:33 p.m. Dec. 20 after Valles posted $5,000 bond earlier in the day. Valles was then released from jail at 11:59 p.m.

On Feb. 7, Valles and another criminal illegal alien robbed and murdered Tim Cruz.

A man who was shot to death early Tuesday near an RTD station on the Denver-Lakewood border has been identified as 32-year-old Tim Cruz, authorities said.

Cruz was shot during a robbery at 4:33 a.m. Tuesday on the 1100 block of Sheridan Boulevard, according to the Denver Office of the Medical Examiner.

He was pronounced dead at the RTD station, according to a news release by Steven Castro, spokesman for the coroner’s office. The manner of death is homicide, Castro said.

On Feb. 17, Valles and the other scum ball were charged with Cruz’s death.

You tell me. Does someone have blood on their hands here? Sanctuary cities are a serious problem that must be dealt with harshly. They should not be considered a “point of pride” for any city.

Connecticut budget – Malloy wants 325% increase for pistol permits

Section 15 of Connecticut’s Constitution reads “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” There are no qualifiers. There are no limits written or implied. And there is no mention of a $370 mandatory fee to a participate in this right.

Connecticut’s Budget Mess

Connecticut’s Gov. D.P. Malloy (D) is asking for that 325 percent increase in pistol permit fees as he makes an attempt to fix the state’s budget. Remember three years ago when the Hartford Courant breathlessly reported a budget surplus of $500 million? Malloy commented…

”There’s much work to do, but make no mistake: our economy is improving, private sector jobs are growing at the strongest pace in decades, and we are reducing the state’s overall indebtedness,” Malloy said in a statement. ”And we are accomplishing all of this at the same time we are putting money away in the rainy day fund. That’s a record to be proud of.”

Within hours many were openly laughing at the governor’s comments. Within three months, the CT Mirror let us know

Plummeting tax receipts have ripped a nearly $300 million hole in the next state budget, leaving legislators and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy just one week to fix it, according to a new report Wednesday from fiscal analysts.

… the $500 million-plus surplus Malloy touted just two months ago when he proposed a tax rebate has disintegrated to $43 million.

How the hell does that happen? Mismanagement, making promises you can never expect to keep, and spending policies that absolutely defy the imagination is how. Now back to the fees.

Connecticut’s Pistol Permit Fees

For the simple reason anti-gun advocates think firearm owners should be punished, Malloy figures increasing the fees on pistol permits will be accepted. The simple fact is many good people live in communities that are hard-hit by crime. They have the right – as does every other law-abiding person – to defend themselves and the US Constitution and Connecticut’s Constitution confirms that God-given right. Why is anyone forced by the State of Connecticut required to pay close to $600* to get a permit to exercise this right? How is that moral?

It’s not. Some may say Malloy’s suggestion to raise permit fees is racist. It’s hard to argue it’s not. Maybe Malloy thinks pistol permits should only be available to those who have enough disposable income? Yeah, that’s it: Malloy hates the poor and could not care about their right to self-defense. I’m convinced.

Other Fee Increases

Malloy is also suggesting raising the cigarette tax .45 cents per pack, increasing fees on criminal history record checks, record filing, cremation services, urgent care center licensing and doubling the bottle deposit fee. (Why does the government get any of bottle deposit money?)

But more importantly, let’s look at some fees the governor has not mentioned raising which includes a criminal background check, just like a pistol permit.

I could go on-and-on, but Malloy is not suggesting any of these fees be raised even though every one requires a complete background check and investigation of some sort.

Why are those wishing to participate in a God-given right, confirmed by both the US and Connecticut Constitution being targeted by Malloy? We know the reason.

* Along with the initial $370 state fee, Connecticut requires a training class that varies in cost between $100 and $160, plus the individual town’s tack on additional fees of at least $70. Hence … almost $600, not including the eight hours of time you need to take the class plus at least another four to six hours of your time with the local and state police. And that’s per person.

No ambiguity: Trump has authority to suspend entry of aliens

The president has a tremendous amount of power – confirmed by the Constitution and the Supreme Court – concerning the entry into the United States of all aliens. The law is clear. No ambiguity at all.

Code § 1182(f)
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Of course, none of the blow-hard media “expert” journalists from the main stream media even acknowledge this law actually exists. They do say the president “has a lot of authority” or something like that, but then they say other parts of the Constitution may “temper” the power he has.

No, there is nothing that tempers 1182(f), nothing.

From the National Review, with my emphasis.

Writing for the Supreme Court in 1948 (in Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman), Justice Robert Jackson — FDR’s former attorney general and the chief prosecutor at Nuremburg — explained that decisions involving foreign policy, including alien threats to national security, are “political, not judicial” in nature.

NR refers directly to Jackson’s decision, which in part reads…

Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and have long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.

Democrat scare tactics continue … “take away health care…”

Unbelievable liars. All of them. Below is part of the email the “DNC War Room” just sent out with the subject line Add your name: Tell Congress to protect health care.

Let’s get something straight. Nobody .. not one conservative or Republican is trying to “take health care away” from anybody.

Prior to the Affordable [my ass] Health Care for America Act, everyone had access to health care. Walk in to any hospital and get treated. It was the absolute rule of law across the United States. You could not be turned away if you were sick or in need. In 1986 – during the Reagan administration – Congress passed the Emergency Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).

EMTALA imposes 3 distinct legal duties on hospitals. According to the statute, only facilities that participate in Medicare are included, but this encompasses almost 98% of all US hospitals. First, hospitals must perform a medical screening examination (MSE) on any person who comes to the hospital and requests care to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Second, if an EMC exists, hospital staff must either stabilize that condition to the extent of their ability or transfer the patient to another hospital with the appropriate capabilities. Finally, hospitals with specialized capabilities or facilities (e.g., burn units) are required to accept transfers of patients in need of such specialized services if they have the capacity to treat them.

Furthermore, the law prohibits any participating hospital from delaying such screening examination or further care “in order to inquire about the individual’s method of payment or insurance status.”

Get treated, get better, go home … and we’ll bill you later.

In no way, shape or form would even the complete, immediate repeal of the Affordable [my ass] Health Care for America Act result in “taking health care away.” That’s a total lie.

Everyone has access to health care, and now thanks to Obamacare, almost nobody can afford paying the bills that come with the service. Health care insurance premiums are through the roof. High-deductible health plans that used to have annual deductibles in the $750 to $1,000 range just eight years ago, now have annual deductibles at or more than $5,000 per year. Back in Nov. 2016 I wrote…

If you’re middle class on a non-subsidized ACA plan, a family of four spends about $1,300 a month in premiums. The deductible for those plans is $13,000 per year. So once you pay $28,600 out-of-pocket each year, your insurance kicks in.

That’s not an anomaly, those are the figures I ran in November and I’m not sure what the plan level was. I just ran the numbers again, and a family of four with two kids (12 and 14) who are shopping for an unsubsidized plan will pay a minimum of $20,496 out-of-pocket for the least expensive plan required by law. Dental and vision not covered. If you’re one of the unlucky families that are required to – by law – buy these outrageously high policies that simply provide you with catastrophic care due to the high deductibles and premiums, you know what I’m talking about.

If you’re an employer working hard to keep 50 to 200 employees covered in a group plan, you know what I’m talking about. Prices are out of control.

Of course, if you’re “lucky” enough to get a subsidy – where other people’s money is covering part of your tab – and you’re the same family of four making $50,000 a year in Connecticut, you’ll still be paying out more than $10,000 in premiums and deductibles before insurance picks up anything.

Don’t let the DNC liars take the high ground here. Don’t let them lie and continue their fear-mongering. Call them out on it. The president lied when he said we could keep our plan and our doctor. He lied when he said costs would go down $2,500 a year. Lie, Lie, Lie.

Breaking Defense: Trump’s Generals – Mattis & Flynn & Kelly

In a three-part series, James Kitfield from Breaking Defense provides brief overviews of the experienced military men that will, or may be working for President-elect Trump in leadership positions.

Among the many anxieties inspired by the rise of Trump, one of the most profound is his fondness for generals. Does naming so many retired military men to top positions undermine the principal of civilian control? How might their shared experiences in our post-9/11 conflicts shape the way they govern? This week, award-winning defense reporter James Kitfield takes us in depth with profiles of Jim Mattis, John Kelly, and Mike Flynn. Today, Kitfield starts the series with a look at Trump’s generals as a group. Besides Trump, what do they all have in common? The answer is one word: war.

Trump’s Generals: How Wartime Service Shaped Mattis, Kelly, & Flynn

Trump’s Generals, Part 2: Jim Mattis vs. Iran

Trump’s Generals, Part 3: Mike Flynn vs. Al-Qaeda

“I don’t understand … he’s an abhorrent person”

I recently commented on a Facebook post referencing Harry Reid saying “Fear is entirely rational” after a campaign of “bigotry and hate.” I simply said “they still don’t get it.”

A friend responded to my comment.

I guess what I don’t get is when people keep telling me to “get over it” and move on. In any past election in my life I was able to do that but this one is different. I understand the reasons peeps voted for T for political reasons some of which I agree with but I just find him to be an abhorrent person. I especially can’t understand how people who wanted to draw and quarter Bill C for being morally bankrupt now turned around and over looked what a pig T is and actually vote for him. And please don’t tell me I’ve been brainwashed by the liberal media against him. I heard with my own ears the hateful things he said.

We obviously can’t point to “one thing” to help understand why folks voted for Trump. A significant part of the equation was Democrats who stayed home or voted for Trump. Trump will end up with about the same number of votes McCain and Romney received, but Clinton ended up with 10 million and 5 million (respectively) fewer votes than Obama.

But I’ll stick to one thought for now: He fought back.

Liberals have been talking down to me for a couple of decades now, but I really started noticing when I started writing for this conservative website. Here are just some of the hateful things that have been said to me, about me, and other conservatives for decades. Strong language coming…

  • I’m a racist because I want our border secured and I want to limit legal immigration in defense of our American culture and ideals.
  • I’m racist since I absolutely do not agree there is “endemic” racism problem in law enforcement.
  • I’m racist since I think the current laws in place should be enforced.
  • I’m a racist homophobe since I think it’s absolutely insane to demand a practicing faithful Christian bake a cake, and have them pay $100k in fines because they are “bigots” if they say no to baking a cake.
  • I hate children because I think the federal Department of Education should be shuttered immediately.
  • I’m delusional since I don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change. I think the climate HAS been changing for millions of years and will continue to do so. To think we can stop global climate change is complete vanity, and when I say that, I’m labeled as someone who wants to destroy the planet.
  • I’m outright insane due to my gun rights stand, and I’m OK with kids getting killed because I think an “assault weapon” ban is absurd.
  • I must be “compensating” for something since I quietly carry a gun to protect myself and my family.
  • There must be something wrong with me because I own evil inanimate objects such as guns, gun magazines, rifles and hollow-point ammunition. Therefore, I must register with the government and be “monitored.” If I fail to register, I’m a criminal.
  • When I say the minimum wage should be zero, I’m a racist and hate poor people trying to raise a family. I’m not allowed to calmly explain why, since the protesting crowd is now yelling at me.
  • People claim I have violent tendencies since I believe in what the TEA Party stands for. When something bad happens, liberals and the media immediately claim it was probably a TEA Party member.
  • When I point out there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole,” I’m an uneducated idiot.
  • When I say it’s terribly sad and heartbreaking more black babies were terminated in NYC than born in 2012 and 2013, I’m a racist AND a misogynist asshole.
  • When I point out conservatives in Washington are not trying to block women from healthcare services or getting the pill, I’m an idiot and anti-woman.
  • When I think the federal government should get completely out of the health care business, I hate women, children and the poor.
  • I’m a racist since I think you should prove you are a citizen when you vote.
  • When I explain human rights exist simultaneously between people and human rights are limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – not healthcare, education, food, housing, cell phones or broadband Internet – I’m a woman-hating, racist asshole.
  • When I say Roe v. Wade was a bad legal decision, heads explode and people start yelling at me before I can explain why.

The criticism, distain and outright hate towards my conservative beliefs continue. I could go on-and-on.

Every single one of these statements – and many more – have been either made to me in person, in an online comment, or sent to me in an email during my time writing more than 2,000 conservative blog posts. Thankfully, I’ve received no death threats, but I know of authors who have. I’ve seen them. Law enforcement dealt with them.

The attacks on some of my friends – who happen to be black conservatives – have been outright brutal. I’ve been present when a protester yelled at them …”you’re a traitor to your race.”

The verbal and written attacks – along with all the “they are stupid” jokes – on Sarah Palin, Palin’s family, George W. Bush, Bush’s family, Mitt Romney, Mia Love, Rand Paul, Alan West, Scott Walker, Clarence Thomas among many others have been BRUTAL for years.

Although Trump was not my chosen candidate, Trump fought back. He gave it out just the same the left have been dishing it out for decades. No national GOP candidate has fought back before. (Well, maybe Reagan.) It was all about “what can we do to get them to accept us.”

Well, Trump got through to folks who were done being bullied by the left.

At this point, I’m more than willing to give Trump a chance. I’ll continue to explain why Constitutional conservatism will work when given the opportunity. I’ll work to direct Trump on conservative policy if he’ll listen. I’ll disagree with him and point out where I think he is wrong just as I did during Bush 43’s term.

Ron Winter: Pollsters, pundits had anti-Trump agenda

From our friend Ron Winter…

All across the American media pollsters and pundits are gazing at their navels and wailing about why Donald Trump was elected president of the United States when everything they did for more than a year was geared to preventing exactly that outcome.

What did we do wrong? What did we miss? Why did the voting public not believe our polls and commentaries in sufficient numbers to make Hillary Clinton president? Woe is us; we are going to have to convene panels and study groups and committees to examine our polling methods to make sure this never happens again.

Read his full article.

 

CNN to DNC: Hey, we need questions for GOP candidate interviews

I don’t think my headline is stretching it all that much at all. Especially since the DNC’s Donna Brazile was fired by CNN for getting caught forwarding debate questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

On April 28, 2016, Lauren Dillon, the research director for the DNC, sent an email out to colleagues.

Subject: Cruz on CNN

CNN is looking for questions.

Please send some topical/interesting ones.

Maybe a couple on Fiorina.

Someone please take point and send them all together by 3pm.

Thank you!

So it’s clear someone from CNN contacted Dillon looking for questions to ask GOP candidates. I guess CNN staff do not have enough time or talent to do their own research and come up with questions. Does this prove collusion between the media and the DNC? Well how about another email sent by Dillon?

On April 25, 2016, Dillon sent another email out to DNC staff reminding them of her request the previous day.

Subject: Re: Trump Questions for CNN

Reminder

Kelly please take lead.

Folks, send your questions and any necessary backup to Kelly.

On Apr 24, 2016, at 10:24 PM, Dillon, Lauren <DillonL@dnc.org<mailto:DillonL@dnc.org>> wrote:

Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed.

Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM tomorrow.

Thanks!

When Dillon asks people to send her “thoughts,” she’s using her role as the DNC researcher-in-chief (leader of opposition research) to collect questions for Blitzer at CNN to use during his interview. Again, Blitzer can not seem to come up with his own questions, so he goes to the DNC for help.

But there is more. This one week in April was pretty busy for the opposition research team at the DNC. Eric Walker, the deputy communications director at the DNC, had a research request for his staff. Lauren Dillon was also looped in. On April 21, 2016, Walker sent to the following email.

Subject: research request: top 10 worst Trump quotes?

Milbank doing a Passover-themed 10 plagues of Trump.

Off top of my head, I’m thinking:

  • Punish women
  • Mexicans as rapists
  • Ban Muslims
  • Shoot someone in middle of 5th ave
  • Rough up BLM protestor
  • Anchor baby
  • Do a lot worse than waterboarding
  • Blood coming out of her wherever
  • Spill beans on ted’s wife
  • Talked about penis on stage at debate

Any other big things I’m missing? And can you pull bullets for these?

Thank you!!

The “Milbank” Walker is referring to is Dana Milbank, and opinion writer for The Washington Post. Less than 24 hours after Walker’s email, Milbank’s article is posted at the Post’s website… The Ten Plagues of Trump.

I would never suggest there is no collusion between the GOP and conservative journalists and opinion writers. In my opinion, this is why we need an extreme shake-up to the governing elite in this country. The establishment political class are all buddy-buddy with the Fourth Estate – The Press – who should be more involved with investigative journalism, coming up with their own damn questions, and reporting truth instead of trying to “make news.”

You’ll note we’re not seeing the original requests from CNN or The Post to the DNC. Back channels. You have the “work” email and then you have the somewhat cryptic free email accounts used by everyone in this great swamp. The stuff nobody wants to reveal is hidden in GMail and Yahoo account discussions. We’ve seen that proven thousands of times in the Podesta GMail leaks.

 

 

 

Clinton has wanted to hide communications for years

If you think Secretary Clinton’s kerfuffle with emails started when she became Secretary of State in 2008, you’d be incorrect. Prior to her US Senate run in the late 1990s – just as her husband President Clinton was winding down his final term in office – Clinton expressed terror at the thought of her email communications being exposed through freedom of information requests.

In this clip from an ABC News 20/20 segment on Clinton bundler and felon Peter Paul, home video catches Clinton mid-discussion concerning email communications.

Clinton stated…

As much as I’ve been investigated and all that, why would I … why would I want to do email? Can you imagine?

In an interview with Andrea Mitchell from NBC News, Clinton claimed they “didn’t really stop and think what kind of email system will there be.” She was lying, and the video from the Peter Paul fundraising event pretty much confirms she was concerned about hiding communications from view more than 16 years ago.

[fbvideo link=”https://www.facebook.com/AmericaRisingPAC/videos/1042005259157346/” width=”500″ height=”400″ onlyvideo=”1″]

Of course, many millennials who were not politically aware – and many of us older – have mostly forgotten all of the crap that was happening as Bill Clinton was leaving office and Hillary Clinton was getting geared up for her Senate campaign. Here is the full 20/20 report. I would not doubt it if ABC News block the video, but if they do, I challenge them to put the full report online with commercials instead of hiding it.