God: Progenitor of Family Eradication? Really?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, while addressing law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana on June 14, 2018 attempted to justify the Trump administration's immigration policy of arresting parents at the border and taking their children away from them. You've heard about this. Donald Trump likes to tell everyone that the policy continues only because the Democrats won't put a stop to it. This is a farce, of course, yet right in line with every other farce Trump pushes as President. This justification attempt by Sessions, however, takes a little more cynical approach: quoting the Bible as proof that God would approve what he and Trump are doing. It's a fantastic leap, and you have to admire his audacity, if it didn't make you want to punch him in the mouth for saying it. And personally, nothing made me want to punch him more than the smirk he gets on his face as he begins to read the quote:

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

This is not the first or last time a politician invokes God or the Bible as his/her "divine" justification for cruelty, bigotry, discrimination, etc. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 (“The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”) is trotted out regularly by Republican pols every time one of their brethren floats SNAP and WIC restrictions or elimination. Even Sessions' Romans 13 quote has been used before, by British colonists loyal to King George prior to the American Revolution, and later by southern slave holders arguing against abolitionists prior to the Civil War. It's nothing new.

It's also nothing new to exacto-knife the sliver of the Bible that justifies the argument, while ignoring the relevant context of what comes before and/or after such quotes. It's also noteworthy that a scripture that encourages submission to authorities is being invoked to a country born of rebellion. So are we to assume that Jeff Sessions believes we should still be a colony of Great Britain, that we should have submitted ourselves to King George? Or is his "Christian" belief so thin that he only uses it when it suits his purposes, because no one wants to hear his hollow justifications?

And are we, as a country, supposed to read this invocation as Sessions saying that the country will submit themselves to his religious beliefs, regardless of their own? That would be a new twist on religious freedom... And by the by, how can you not smile at the fact that the "Apostle Paul" he is quoting wrote a group of letters during a period of confinement, literally referred to as the "prison epistles," and was later said to have been decapitated in Rome by Nero?

Back to Romans... Romans 12:3 states:

“For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you.”

And Romans 12:9-13:

“Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.”

"Be devoted to one another in love... Honor one another above yourselves... Share with the Lord's people who are in need... and Practice hospitality." Did our Attorney General refer to this biblical text? No. He instead went to the one quote that has him believing we all must submit to his authority. And if he wants to take your children away from you, God has ordained that it's his right to do so. Maybe we should appreciate the forest for the tree, that Sessions isn't calling for beheadings?

And as for Romans 13, Sessions neglected verses 3, 4, and 8-10:

“(3) For rulers hold no terror for those who do right...
(4) For the one in authority is the servant for your good...
(8) Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law...
(9) Love your neighbor as yourself...
(10) Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

But it's all okay, because Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the bulwark of honesty and moral authority herself, was there to assure us all is good and divine in the world, even insulting the intelligence of a reporter for good measure. And she repeatedly follows Trump's false assertion that all of this is Democrats' fault, if only they would close those dastardly loopholes - as if the Democrats have any power at all in a House and Senate that are both owned and controlled by her and the president's Republican party:




⬅ ⬅ You heard her, folks. As God would want it...

Mueller's indictments are just the beginning

Robert Mueller is getting close. Paul Manafort and Rick Gates' indictments are just the breaking of the seal. The real head-turner in this saga is the guilty plea of George Papadopoulos, who admitted to lying to the FBI during the grand jury investigation, and admitting that he approached Trump and his team about his ability to get Trump a meeting with Putin, an attempt confirmed by JD Gordon, who is sitting next to Papadopoulos in the March 31, 2016 National Security meeting that Trump himself tweeted the photo of. Gordon recalled the conversation, that Jeff Sessions' was disinterested in the possibility of Trump meeting Putin, but also that Trump himself was interested. Trump, as recently as Friday before he left for Asia, tried to downplay the meeting itself, calling it "unimportant," and claiming that he doesn't even remember it - a hilariously dumb assertion, coming from "one of the great memories of all time" (direct quote).

But one of the more damning elements of this is that Papadopoulos claims to have tried to have this conversation because a Russian professor he communicated with had emails of Hillary Clinton and John Podesta. This flies square in the face of Trump and his team claiming they didn't know about the email hack until much later. If what Papadopoulos is claiming is true, it not only shows that Trump and his team knew about it, but raises questions of whether they were involved in the retrieval and release. This may not be the case, of course, but they can't avoid the position they've put themselves in by continuously lying at every turn, about even the most benign things. And worse, the timeline puts Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey squarely in the cross-hairs, because now that firing could be argued as federal obstruction of justice, a felony.

Mueller also did the wisest thing he could have done, which is to release the indictments and Papadopoulos' plea deal as early as he could, because Trump has ratcheted up his complaints about Mueller in recent weeks, and many were wondering if he would finally pull the trigger and fire him. This release makes that possibility all the more difficult to do. And while the administration has tried to claim Papadopoulos was a "low-level volunteer," and a "liar," (but Trump calls everyone a liar...), Trump himself named Papadopoulos to his Foreign Policy team, publicly mentioning him in an interview. Papadopoulos also represented the Trump campaign at the RNC, sitting on a foreign policy panel for a discussion on US foreign policy for the American Jewish Committee.

Interestingly, while some hard-liners have encouraged Trump to fire Mueller, many Republican politicians have widely warned the Trump administration against doing so. It's becoming clear that their fates in re-election could be tied to whatever Trump does in response to the investigation, and they want no part of that kind of fallout. Many are also holding their breath in anticipation of Trump doing something even dumber, like professing a plan to pardon everyone Mueller indicts. Trump has discussed this before, and has seemed unflinching about the optics of doing such a thing, as evidenced my the move he's already made for Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio. If he pre-emptively pardons Manafort, Gates and - in amnesty-type fashion - anyone else that the Mueller investigation eventually uncovers, the rule of law in this country will unravel. No politician wants to be seen as being a party to one of the most serious abdications of responsibility and accountability in presidential history.

However this plays out, Mueller is just getting started. And the microscope he is under assures that he wouldn't be issuing indictments and making plea deals if he didn't have at least some of the evidence he needs to uphold the charges. The question now is: Does Donald Trump have the testicular fortitude to NOT be himself, and let Mueller do his job without interference? I wouldn't put Vegas odd on it...

How early CAN we ban abortion?

Ohio is trying to become the latest state to move the banning of abortion to earlier in a pregnancy, by introducing bills that would ban abortion for genetic disorder reasons and once a fetal heartbeat can be registered. First, the bills:

Ohio House Bill 214, for the 132 General Assembly

The bill prohibits any person from purposefully performing or inducing, or attempting to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman, if the person has knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion, in whole or in part, for any of the following reasons:

• A test result indicating Down syndrome in an unborn child;
• A prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome in an unborn child;
• Any other reason to believe that an unborn child has Down syndrome.

The bill does not specifically prohibit the act of aborting unborn children with Down syndrome. Rather, it looks at why the mother desires an abortion and whether the person who will perform the abortion knows the mother's reasons. Whoever violates this prohibition is guilty of performing or attempting to perform an abortion that was being sought because of Down syndrome, a felony of the fourth degree.

The bill also:

• Requires the State Medical Board to revoke a physician's license to practice medicine if the physician violates the criminal prohibition.
• Provides that a physician who violates the criminal prohibition is civilly liable for compensatory and exemplary damages and reasonable attorney's fees to any person who sustains injury, death, or loss that results from the prohibited abortion.
• Provides criminal immunity for a pregnant woman on whom an abortion was performed, in violation of the criminal prohibition.
• Provides that the criminal prohibition does not repeal or limit any other provision of law that restricts or regulates the performance or inducement of an abortion
• Requires physicians to indicate a lack of knowledge that the mother's intent to seek an abortion was, in whole or in part, because of a test result indicating Down syndrome, a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, or due to any other reason to believe the unborn child had Down syndrome, when complying with the continuing requirement to report to the Department of Health after each abortion.

Ohio House Bill 258, for the 132 General Assembly

The bill prohibits any person from knowingly and purposefully performing or inducing an abortion with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human individual whose fetal heartbeat has been detected.

• Provides that a person who violates the above prohibition is guilty of performing or inducing an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, a felony of the fifth degree;
• Provides that a physician is not in violation of the above prohibition if that physician performs a medical procedure designed to or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman or prevent a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman;
• Provides that a person is not in violation of the prohibition if that person has performed an examination for the presence of a fetal heartbeat and the method used does not reveal a fetal heartbeat;
• Provides that a physician does not commit the offense if the physician performs or induces an abortion believing that a medical emergency exists.
• Provides that the prohibition does not repeal or limit any other provision of law that restricts or regulates the performance or inducement of an abortion by a particular method or during a particular stage of pregnancy.

So the implications of these bills are severe. First, the heartbeat: the fetus first registers a heartbeat at about six weeks. This is a problem for women who may not even find out they are pregnant until that time. The heartbeat bill is putting a burden of hyper-intuition on women to just "know" immediately that they are pregnant, in order to get an abortion within the highly restricted time frame. Constitutionally, it's difficult to argue that this is not an undue burden.

The Down Syndrome bill is where we get into really sticky constitutional terrain - not because they want to ban abortion for a possible Down Syndrome fetus, but because they want to ban abortion, period, and this is a very slick and conniving way to do it. Go with me on this, because this bill isn't about Down Syndrome, it's about opening a door, and Down Syndrome is the pry bar on the deadbolt:

1. Ban abortion on any fetus that has been tested to show a possibility of Down Syndrome;
2. Then argue that they should protect all fetuses who may test positive for any genetic or developmental disorder (such as Cystic Fibrosis, Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, Hemophilia A, Thalassemia, Sickle-Cell Anemia, Spina Bifida, Polycystic Kidney Disease, Tay-Sachs disease, etc., and expand the law to accommodate these as well;
3. Then argue that they can't know IF they need to protect fetuses from their mothers, and so expand the law to require genetic (MSAFP) testing on fetuses before doctors are allowed to perform an abortion, which can't be done the 16th-18th week. This is a great alternative for the Right To Birth-ers (not "Right To Life-rs," there's no such thing) if they can't get the Heartbeat legislation to pass, or if it does pass and later gets kicked on constitutional grounds;
4. Then argue that it's easier to require doctors to run hCG (a protein) and PAPP-A (a hormone) tests (these test can be run very early in the pregnancy) on the mothers themselves, once pregnancy is confirmed, for genetic markers that indicate the possibility of chromosomal abnormality long before MSAFP tests would confirm such abnormalities, and expand the law to ban abortion based on the POSSIBILITY rather than the CONFIRMATION.

The idea here is to ban abortion as early in pregnancy as possible, to essentially eliminate the window to abort at all. The Heartbeat bill would do that in all but a few cases, but the Down Syndrome bill is more comprehensive in the precedent that is being set. Thanks to GMOs in our crops and chemical treatments on our livestock, the food we eat has contributed to a rise in the development of allergies in children per capita, as well as mutations in hormones (this is why children, especially girls, are entering puberty as early as 8-10 years old.) This means women will, inevitably, increasingly test positive for some form of possible abnormality. This bill could be the crack in the door to PRE-BANNING women from getting abortions if they ever get pregnant.

Don't mistake this for a doomsday scenario - THIS IS HOW OUR STATE AND FEDERAL CONGRESS WORKS. Fail, retry with different parameters, fail again, retry with different parameters, fail again, retry with different parameters, succeed - the door's been cracked! One success is where it starts, and they build on the precedent to open the door wider and wider with every expansion stemming from that original law.

Pay attention to these legislations, and pay attention to how legislators operate. Often, these bills are buried deep in bigger, more expansive bills, in hopes that they can slither the bill past the people without being noticed - and then it's too late. Stuff like this matters.You have to pay attention and harass your legislators to vote NO on these bills when they are introduced and, more importantly, READ every bill in it's entirety, so they can catch buried bills being snuck past them. Their job is to competently represent you, protect your freedom and your rights - it's their JOB. The thing they care about above all else is re-election. They need to know their constituents are watching them like a hawk.

Kelly Ann Conway Thinks Democrats Undercut Feminism

Kelly Ann Conway, President Donald Trump's senior counselor and omnipresent surrogate, sat down with The Family Leader president and CEO Bob Vander Plaats at this year's Family Leadership Summit in Des Moines, Iowa on Saturday. During this discussion, Conway complains that the criticism directed at her since the administration entered the White House has been because she's a woman. That she can accept disagreements on policy or ideology, but she instead gets attacked for her appearance or the way she speaks. This is not an untrue statement - ironic, considering the source. But Conway, as is her habit, misses the bigger picture: that she is to blame for most of what comes her way.

If you want to disagree on policy — if you disagree on tax reform or health care reform or immigration or you’re for abortion and I’m not — then say that. Disagree that way, that’s what America is. But so much of the criticism of me is so gender-based.

It’s really remarkable, and it totally undercuts modern feminism, saying they're "for women."

"Saying they're 'for women'," of course, refers to Democrats. Unfortunately, most of the criticism, actually, is dignity-based, in that she appears to have little of it. For the most part, she does not really spin, per se. A lot of the time, her comments are appallingly obtuse red herrings, the ones that are not flat out lies. She became useless in the eyes of most of America the moment she invented "alternative facts." She unintentionally gave away what she is and what she's worth as a professional. Admittedly, she fits right in with any organization that would be run by Trump. But she may as well have quit the next day, because nothing she ever says again will have credibility, and that has not one thing to do with her gender. And if she thinks I'm stretching here, I submit to you Sean Spicer.

As for modern feminism, Conway took a professional job, where her responsibility is putting a positive spin on the most misogynistic guy in America. She's had to put a positive spin on the following:

You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss, I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pu--y... you can do anything...

And what was Conway's response to this on CNN when, while guesting in the post-debate Spin Room, CNN's Dana Bash asked her about Rep. Kathy McMorris Rodgers' (R-WA) statement that called Trump's comments "sexual assault?" (For context, McMorris Rodgers is not a woman who was throwing the gauntlet down on Trump. She ultimately supported Trump's candidacy for president, and was reported to be the early front runner the Secretary of the Interior, before Trump chose Ryan Zinke. So while she appears to take a strong stance, it wasn't a stance strong enough to affect her support. Just something to keep in mind.)

Conway instead redirected Bash to women Bill Clinton allegedly assaulted and a child rapist that Hillary defended in 1975. Then she continues on, to say that Donald Trump has a decades long track record of respecting women. And ultimately, no one should use the phrase "sexual assault," because she knows him better.

Of course, Conway "knowing him better" might mean something if she had not shown a propensity for obtuse rhetoric and blindness to what's right in front of her and the rest of America, if one simply pays attention. But the woman who defends a narcissistic misogynist who expounds about women's menstruation, belittles women's appearances, and says he can grab women's pu--ies anytime he wants - when he's not grabbing and kissing them with no warning (and that IS the textbook definition of sexual assault, Kelly - that you think otherwise says more about you than you realize) - we are supposed to believe that it's other people who are undercutting modern feminism..

Paris Agreement Withdrawal Belies the Problem with Making America Great Again

President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement , which went into effect in November 2016. As with most things Trump, there is no teeth in his withdrawal, in that - unlike the Kyoto Protocol - the resolutions for emissions reduction by each country are not legally binding. All reduction goals are voluntary, and each country determines the levels it believes it can achieve. Just like George W. Bush refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, Trumps reasons are dubiously economic, claiming that the Paris Agreement will cost Americans jobs, increase energy costs, and provide little in the way of enforcement. Not coincidentally, both Trump and Bush are climate change deniers and fiercely supportive of the oil industry. So when they make claims about the increase of energy costs, this is only because both presidents flat out refused to support the push to eliminate fossil fuels and increase renewables. If either one put the support of the federal government behind the effort, there would be plenty of jobs to boost the economy. Trump, on the other hand, still thinks he's going to magically re-animate coal jobs.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less that we pulled out of the agreement, from a practical standpoint. The Paris Agreement is as inconsequential as Trump's withdrawal from it. Enforcement is indeed nonexistent, and why not? The countries didn't have to commit to any specific emissions reduction numbers, yet developed nations like the U.S. had to commit to financial contributions to developing nations for climate protection and technological advancement that were promised back in 2009 - but he disregards the fact that there is no enforcement mechanism to force the U.S. to do anything. So Trump's statements in his speech are highly misleading. The reality is this was a political decision in favor of oil interests, willfully ignorant of the actual regulatory stipulations within the agreement, which there are none. The irony in Trump withdrawing from the agreement is, in the symbolic nature of fulfilling a campaign promise, the symbolism has fractured still more of the global community's trust in the United States. All but two countries were part of the Paris Agreement. The United States joined Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not participating. Our participation was only important because we are the second largest emitter of CO₂ on the planet, behind only China. So when the rest of the world is trying to reduce the effects of industry on the amount of pollutants in the atmosphere, it helps to have the largest perpetrators as part of the effort. And as usual, Donald Trump gives a fat middle finger to everyone else, because he simply can not stop himself. And China becomes a big winner in all of this because, while the U.S. has been in the process of falling far short of its 2030 goals, China has drastically reduced coal consumption and boosted renewables. They will meet their target ahead of schedule. So Trump withdrawing from the agreement only puts China in the driver's seat as a global leader, the same country that Trump called an enemy, a currency manipulator, and a perpetrator of the climate "hoax" in the first place.

In an even greater irony, Trump claims that he withdrew the U.S. from the agreement so he can renegotiate the agreement. How exactly would that work? First of all, participating countries agreed that the agreement cannot be renegotiated. Wouldn't a president of the United States, who is publicly criticizing the agreement, know that? Second, Trump just spent the last couple of weeks offending most of the global community on his European trip, most overtly Germany, causing Chancellor Angela Merkel to say, "the times when we could completely rely on others are, to an extent, over." She spoke generally, but the underlying specificity was the United States. And after Bush pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, and now Trump the Paris Agreement, what country will ever trust the U.S. enough to negotiate anything on climate, let alone trust us as a leader on anything in general?

Thus the political impact on our foreign policy could be far more damaging than any climate accords and that's where the symbolic failure really is. If we can't be trusted to maintain and abide by our agreements, who's going to help us when we really need it? With this administration, it has been made abundantly clear that we can not be counted on. Trump is making America great again, even if it is at the expense of our relations with the rest of the world. And we better be full on great, because in Trump's hands, it will be just us. Our allies, such as they are at this point, will have no incentive to work with us; on the contrary, they will have strong disincentives to tie any of their fortunes or stability to us. Our only saving grace right now is that the strongest economic influences in this country are staunchly against Trump's decision, and wrote a letter urging him to remain in the agreement:

CEOs Urge President Trump to Remain in Paris Accord by CNET News on Scribd

Of course these companies have a vested interest in maintaining the United States' standing in the global community. They all do business around the world. They can't afford to have countries hesitate before agreeing to work with them on business dealings or initiatives that could have significant economic impact. Naturally, a few people trying to positively influence President Trump resigned from White House commissions after Trump's announcement, including Tesla/Space X owner Elon Musk, and The Walt Disney Company CEO, Bob Iger. But all of this is inconsequential, if symbolic, because the rest of the world is moving on from fossil fuels, regardless of the efforts by Trump and his administration to prop up the industry.
Coal jobs are gone. Oil companies like ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc have sold off their Canadian oil sand interests in northern Alberta, and Cheveron and British Petroleum (BP) have been considering doing the same. So while the rest of the world moves on, we'll have Donald Trump, EPA Director Scott Pruitt, the Koch Brothers, et al, living out the last dying breaths of an rapidly decaying industry. Which is why Donald Trump's decision ultimately means nothing, economically and practically, a recurring theme in his short term as president. His incessant need to try to prove he's above everyone else ultimately will make them trust us less, and his decisions on an international scale will have less and less impact, once these other countries accept that America does.not.care.

So while the actual logistical impact of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement was meaningless, the larger foreign policy and international relations implications are why we should have stayed. One might have expected a president and foreign policy advisers to know this and have a better bead on the pulse of the global community. But this is Donald Trump's administration. You can't put the bar low enough for them to clear it without tripping all over themselves. It's what you get when an amateurish, low-information voter wins the White House. But that's okay. America will be made great again.

The GOP Health Care Bill Proves How Little Politicians Care for the People Nowadays

The House of Representatives narrowly passed H.R. 1628 , aka the American Health Care Act, in a 217-213 vote. If you think that bill sounds familiar, you would be correct - it's the same bill from March that was pulled from a vote by House Majority Leader Paul Ryan, because too many far-right voters were opposed to it. The main difference between then and now is the presence of the MacArthur Amendment , so named for it's creator and sponsor, Representative Tom MacArthur (R-NJ). In the amendment, states are allowed to request issuance of a waiver that would allow them to eliminate Obamacare constraints placed on insurers in the individual marketplace if an individual's coverage has lapsed for a minimum period of time. They would be allowed to gouge the price on the individual, for one year after the policy is re- activated. This would include the ban on discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, as well as the list of essential health benefits that must be included in all plans, such as emergency services, pregnancy/maternity/newborn care, prescription drugs, laboratory services, etc. Theoretically, there are restrictions in the amendment on applying for the waivers that maintain protections for these possibly jeopardized elements, since they keep claiming that they will protect those with pre-existing conditions. But the availability of a waiver means, if a state were to obtain one, the premiums for those in the high-risk pools that would be created could climb so high as to price everyone out of the ability to pay for their coverage. Also, there is no mechanism for enforcement, which is, not so coincidentally, what one would expect from a bill/amendment that was passed with no debate and no Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score. Of course Ryan did it this way - his last go-around with this got shot down. And, not for nothing, the CBO score for the previous iteration of the bill is still problematic, because this new iteration does nothing to improve that score - 24 million insured are still at risk of losing their coverage, and now the waiver could price high-risk pools out of the market. And this says nothing for the 150-200 million people who get their insurance from their employer. If waivers are issued to allow states to define "essential health services," employers would then be free to choose which services are the most fiscally beneficial to the company and elect to offer them instead, which could cut or eliminate services , or place annual limitations on coverage costs. The potential for greater negative impact is pretty high, but there is no way to have accurate adjustments because, again, the CBO was ignored for this go around.

There is also the Upton Amendment , introduced by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), which would provide $8 billion in assistance to cover premium increases and out of pocket costs for anyone who is placed in high risk pools, or loses their coverage under the AHCA. This is little consolation, however, when considering $8 billion covers less than 2% of the potential premium hikes that could occur.

The main points are as follows. And remember, most of the original bill remains intact:

Individual Mandate/Funding

• The Individual Mandate is repealed, retroactive to 01/01/2016.
• The tax penalty for non-compliance with the mandate is repealed, retroactive to 01/01/2016.
• Establish State Patient and State Stability Fund of $130 billion/9 years, and an additional $8 billion/5 years for states that elect to use the community rating waivers. These funds are intended to mitigate the impact of increased premiums and out of pocket costs for the high risk pools.
• Funding for Prevention and Public Health Fund is repealed, end of FY2018.
• Supplemental funding of $422 million for community health centers provided for FY2017.
• Establishes a state option to require work as a condition of eligibility for nondisabled, nonelderly, nonpregnant Medicaid adults.

Subsidies

• The subsidies are repealed, effective 01/01/2020.
• Income-based premium tax credits are replaced with age-based flat-tax credits, increasing the percentage above the federal poverty level (FPL)for younger adults, decreasing it for older adults, but the credits are not adjustable by area or region of the country. If you are in New York or Oklahoma, regardless of the cost of living. Eligibility for these credits phase out at income levels between $75,000 and $115,000.
• The credits begin at $2,000 for young people, up to $4,000 for older people. And that's it. You get the same credit no matter how expensive insurance is in your area, which is a large part of the disconnect by politicians to recognize how much they are potentially hurting people with the plan as it is.
• Families can claim credits for up to the five oldest members, capped at $14,000/year total.
• Amounts are indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus 1%.

Of course, the biggest problem with all of this is exactly what you see from all the politicians. After the bill barely passes, the Democrats chant ("Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!"), while Republicans hop on buses to go to the White House to throw a party with Trump in the Rose Garden. Both sides react as if it's a game. Obamacare was pushed through almost as haphazardly and recklessly as this bill was. Most people did not read either one. Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, "We need to pass this bill so we can find out what's in it," in possibly one of the most obtuse statements in political history, when discussing Obamacare. But seven years later, back in March, Pelosi wrote a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan , saying, "The American people and Members have a right to know the full impact of this legislation before any vote in Committee or by the whole House." In other words, "do as I say, not as I do..."

It feels as though we crossed a threshold. Politicians used to have to at least pretend to care about the people, because the people could vote someone out - and a much more informed electorate had no problem doing that. That's not a problem anymore, thanks to gerrymandering. As the electorate has become more ignorant and uninformed, their dedication to party has only grown more unyielding, it would appear almost out of spite. And politicians love that, because it only further bolsters their methods of pitting one against the other. They don't care about the people, because they no longer have to. It's about us vs. them, and the goal is not to do the work of the people - it's to win, no matter the cost. And that's why we get bills so atrociously put together, and why no one reads them, and why potentially hurting tens of millions of people feels like a such a victory, they need the Rose Garden at the White House to party in celebration of it, despite knowing how bad it is - remember they've exempted themselves from this bill, thanks to arcane Senate rules concerning the MacArthur Amendment - though, to be fair, the House version denies the exemption. No surer sign of how bad something is than to watch Congress exempt themselves from having to abide by it - we'll see if the Senate's version of the bill keeps the exemption. And they've got the Barnum and Bailey Circus ring leader in Donald Trump there to - as expected - ignorantly take credit for this idiocy, and then later praise Australia's prime minister for their health system - a universal health care system that our Congress would burn the Capital building to the ground before they would ever seriously consider.

We have moved beyond serving the people. These politicians, with few exceptions think we live in a capitalist/market-based economy - we don't. Cutting taxes for the rich will not make them expand and hire people. The biggest companies stopped expanding years ago. Increased revenues don't drive up their employment - it simply increases their P/E ratio, and thus their stock value. Tax cuts for the super rich do not drive up employment. Consumers do. Companies don't take tax cuts and expand. Tax cuts go in their coffers. Expansion only happens if they are selling more products or services that cannot be met by current staffing and physical facility levels, which then demands the need for more employees or facilities. That's not what we have nowadays. Most companies "maintain" their business models, and demand more from existing employees to maintain any increases. If tax cuts serve any purpose, it's to upgrade in automation, which ultimately eliminates jobs. Even Trump doesn't understand this. He still thinks coal jobs are coming back.

And this is where the two-party system has gotten us: limiting options to bolster power in small groups. And they will ruin your lives if they can win one more election. It's about winning, not serving. When Mitch McConnell publicly chastises Elizabeth Warren while she's trying to speak on the floor of the Senate one day, then lets a handful of men read the same material the next day and says nothing about any of them, that's the sign. It wasn't about what was right or wrong. It was about the fact that it was Elizabeth Warren, arguably the most powerful woman in the country, and the face of opposition in the Democratic party. He was making sure she knew her place - and the other women in the Democratic party as well. Misogyny is okay, so long as you win. And Mitch McConnell saw to it that every cabinet position was a victory, even changing Senate rules to remove debate. Didn't matter that half of the nominees were wholly unqualified, some not even knowing what their own agencies did. This is about winning. And no uppity woman, like Elizabeth Warren, is going to get in the way of Mitch McConnell's victory, no matter how small. Health care is just one more thing. And whatever the Senate comes up with will be as self serving - and rich serving - as the House version. Count on it.

Tomi Lahren's Comments Spark Backlash and Debate: Is the Constitution Static or Dynamic?

Tomi Lahren visited The View on Friday, March 17, and commented on what, she believed, was the hypocrisy of being for limited government but believing that the government should be telling women what they can do with their bodies. And the conservative establishment lost their minds, backlashing to the point that her TV show "Tomi" has been suspended from the air for at least one week. Glenn Beck then went on his radio show to address Lahren's constitutional stance, while refusing to comment on her long term future at the network.

Beck's stance, of course, is derived from the preamble of the Constitution, in the phrase

"secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

His interpretation of the phrase is understandable, but it sidesteps the context in which it's written. He states it as if future generations are prioritized over the current generation's right to privacy, and not have the government inside their bedrooms and doctors' examination rooms. It's a strong implication which, if extrapolated out, could justify our government creating a law forcing people to procreate as a condition of acquiring a marriage license - you know, to ensure posterity. Sounds crazy, right? But broad, generalized and context-free arguments are where crazy enters the realm of plausibility. And we currently have just the Congressional makeup for crazy to become law - remember, this is the same Republican party that decided Betsy DeVos was wholly qualified to run the Department of Education, and that Rick Perry - who didn't even know what the Department of Engery does - was a wholly qualified candidate for Secretary. This Republican party is why people were so worried about a guy like Trump winning the White House to begin with - not that forced procreation would ever become a likely reality. Just that a platform for such things would no longer be out of the realm of possibility with people who think their religious beliefs should be the law, yet decry Muslims because terrorists are bringing their Sharia law to our shores to take over our government.

Beck implies that his issue is with Lahren not being able to intellectually back up her statement, but that is a bit specious. Lahren has been a walking microphone of obtuse commentary all along, but THIS was the catalyst that sent The Blaze over the edge and suspended her? The cognitive dissonance never bothered Beck before. Is that because it fell in line with how he saw things? He says no. But the one time she tries to make a point that departs from the line, she's a pariah. It's understandable if Beck's argument is met with doubt.

Back on The View, the hosts reacted to the backlash of Lahren by revisiting her Friday statements on Monday's show, and discussing women's rights briefly. Sunny Hosten, the woman sitting next to Whoopi Goldberg, makes a misapplication here, and no one notices it. She thinks that the "life" part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (she says "property") in the Constitution applies easily to protecting zygotes from abortion. First of all, the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" statement isn't in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence. That alone changes the context of the statement. Second, even if it was in the Constitution, the intention of such a statement would never have applied the way she was applying it, unless you are trying to really interpret the heck out of it, in which case we start heading back to Glenn Beck's broad interpretation of the preamble. The founders were rarely vague in their intentions. And people who claim to be "originalists" take the Constitution at face value - misguided to the intention of it's structure and form as that may be - and so could never "interpret" a statement to mean anything more than it does. So this type of interpretation flies in the face of how they themselves claim to see the Constitution - as a static document, unyielding in the literal topography to which they are dedicated. Of course, the phrase is not in the Constitution, so Hostin's argument is lost to misapplied context.

Conservatives have never reconciled how/why the limited government tack doesn't apply when it comes to the bedroom:
• Who you have sex with
• What kind of sex you have
• Sex for recreation vs. procreation

Or when it comes to women:
• Their right to prevent pregnancy with contraception
• Their right to prevent a pregnancy with emergency Plan B
• Their right to terminate a pregnancy
• Their right to NOT have the government try to pull manipulative maneuvers to circumvent laws to push their beliefs onto them

And that's why it's difficult to take these pols and pundits seriously. Any commentary that strays from their line - even if it's correct - is unacceptable to them. Liberals do the same thing sometimes, this one just happens to be the conservatives. But the foolishness in general is comical. And it requires so little of people to simply fall in line, that politicians count on it to push their agendas. In that sense, Trump has made it harder for politicians to push their agendas the way they want to, because Trump himself draws so much attention from the populous in it's ire, that legislators are having a difficult time staying under the radar. Just ask Paul Ryan how he's actually feeling these days...