by Jordan Candler:  It will be extremely interesting to see how this November’s elections play out. To date, 36 Republican representatives have either resigned or announced they are retiring or seeking another office, according to the House Press Gallery’s Casualty List. This is more than twice the number of departing Democrats. Republicans currently have a 46-seat lead in the House (239 Republicans versus 193 Democrats), meaning Democrats will need to flip two dozen seats to regain the majority.

          How likely is that to happen? It depends. As long as the Republican casualty list grows, the outlook could brighten for Democrats. Republicans will likely retain control of most of these seats because of the states they’re in, but other seats are less definitive. For example, California Rep. Ed Royce just published a statement in which he announced this will be his “final year of my Foreign Affairs Committee chairmanship,” and by extension his congressional career.
          As Hot Air’s Allahpundit explains, Royce’s seat isn’t nearly as safe from Democrats: “Royce was probably the party’s only chance of holding the seat, and even that was no sure thing. Without him, CA-39 likely turns blue.”
          This is a quagmire, both strategically and ethically. On the one hand, Republicans need to retain as many seats as possible. But Royce has been on Capitol Hill for a quarter-century. As Allahpundit explains, he cannot remain chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee because of committee term limits enacted by the Republican Party. This is the likely reason for his vacating. Which is ironic — in one sense he’s hanging up the cleats because of committee chair term limits. Yet he has been a lawmaker in the House for 25 years. Terms limits did end up ending his career in the House, but not in the way you’d expect.
          Moreover, Allahpundit continues, “Royce is the seventh committee chairman in the House to announce his resignation this year; faced with the prospect of running an uphill race in November and winning, only to return to the House as a backbencher instead of his committee’s head honcho, he decided to pack it in.” In other words, the inevitable reality of his (and others) going back to an second-tier status prompted his retirement. Some voters who support term limits also support doing anything and everything to retain the majority — including electing someone time and time again. No one is saying the solution is an easy one, but they might not be able to have it both ways.
          And while it’s proving exceptionally difficult for Congress to adopt term limits for everyone, these cases show that they do work. After all, most were committee chairs only because of the power that came with it.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53342

by Thomas Gallatin:  The mainstream media is abuzz over Sen. Diane Fein-stein’s (D-CA) unilateral decision to release a semi-redacted transcript of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s closed-door meeting with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson last August. As the ongoing investigation into Russian election meddling continues to roll on and as more information is learned, this latest move by Fein-stein is somewhat puzzling. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was certainly not pleased, saying, “Her action undermines the integrity of the committee’s oversight work and jeopardizes its ability to secure candid voluntary testimony relating to the independent recollections of future witnesses.” He further noted that none of the other congressional panels had released interview transcripts of closed-door meetings related to the Russia interference investigation.

          Fein-stein may be reacting to Grassley’s recent criminal referral of British ex-spy Christopher Steele, author of the infamous liar-Hillary Clinton-funded anti-Trump dossier, to the Justice Department. Grassley wants DOJ to investigate Steele for possibly lying to the FBI. Fein-stein may also not like the fact that the investigation has started to probe more deeply into liar-Clinton and Democratic National Committees connections to Fusion GPS. Whatever her rationale, Fein-stein’s actions may inform the public while at the same time muddy the investigation.
          So what has been learned from Simpson’s interview? It’s clear that he and Fusion GPS are worried about protecting themselves. Simpson attempted to absolve himself of any guilt regarding the promotion of misinformation with the dubious dossier, saying, “By its very nature the question of whether something is accurate isn’t really asked. The question that is asked generally is whether it’s credible. You don’t really decide who’s telling the truth.” Simpson argued it wasn’t his job to ascertain whether or not the dossier’s information was true. He explained his reason for giving the dossier to Sen. RINO-John McCain (R-AZ), saying, “We just wanted people in official positions to ascertain whether it was accurate or not.”
          The transcript also shows how Simpson conveniently flips, seeing Russian connections as both good and bad, depending upon his relationship with Russians. The short of it being that he saw no conflict of interest in his work for the Russian firm Prevezon Holdings, while at the same time arguing that Trump’s campaign was guilty of collusion.
          Simpson appears to have been convinced that the Trump team was guilty of colluding with Russia, but we also learn that Simpson based this belief on a dossier that he admits he never verified for accuracy. He sees ex-spy Steele as a trustworthy individual, and that even if there were holes in the accuracy of information, he believes that the overall narrative is essentially true. In other words, for Simpson, the political end game was more important than facts and truth.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53364

by Political Editors:  It’s tempting to believe that the only real solution to the problem that is North Korea is war. And that may be especially so lately with comments regarding fingers on nuclear buttons and the size of weapon arsenals. Which makes the latest news coming out of the Asian peninsula seem rather contradictory. North and South Korea have begun talking again, something that hasn’t happened in over two years. And it was the North that reached out to the South, relaying its desire to participate in next month’s Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang.

          Is this a case of sports diplomacy? Not likely. Rather, Kim Jong-un’s motives are two-fold. First, the fact of the matter is that the Olympics Games being hosted on the Korean peninsula is a big deal. For two weeks the world’s attention will be focused on South Korea, which essentially acts as a massive PR campaign. It serves Kim by allowing him to present a positive image of the rogue nation to the world via sports as well as domestically boosting nationalistic pride.
          Second, sanctions are having a real impact, squeezing Kim hard enough that he is now angling for a means to ease them. By engaging in these talks and winning some compromises, like the U.S. and South Korea suspending normal joint military exercises, he hopes to lay the groundwork for further talks eventually leading to some type of economic concession. Ideally, he’d love for a deal similar to the Sunshine Policy, brokered by his father in 1998, which successfully brought in hundreds of millions to the rogue state’s coffers.
          Ultimately, this is all part of Kim’s survival plan. He is no more interested in going to war than is the U.S., but he also knows any backing down to Donald Trump will be perceived as weakness — weakness that could be the death of him. He is navigating in such a manner as to continue toward the goal of developing a nuclear arsenal powerful enough to seriously threaten the U.S. By doing so, he will be in a more powerful position to demand the removal of sanctions while threatening massive consequences should his demands not be met. Kim’s is a plan not for war, but for greater power.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53369

by Lewis Morris:  President Donald Trump brought some focus to the immigration debate during a meeting Tuesday with key lawmakers (though notably absent were party leaders) over a fix to the expiring Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and other immigration reforms. Indeed, Trump did something far different from meetings liar-noBarack “I Won” liar-nObama held with Republicans — he listened to both Republicans and Democrats and expressed the desire to reach a deal on how to both secure the border and the interior, as well as figure out how to handle the 800,000 or so young adults brought here by their parents — the so-called Dreamers.

          Recognizing the chasm that exists between the parties on immigration, Trump suggested a willingness to take on proposals in stages, focusing first on DACA and border security in what he called a “bill of love.” Despite his change in tone from mocking Jeb Bush for similar sentiments on the campaign trail, Trump has been pretty consistent on the substance of what he’s doing on the issue.
          But decipher these remarks from the meeting: “I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with. I am very much reliant on the people in this room. I know most of the people on both sides, I have a lot of respect for the people on both sides, and what I approve is going to be very much reliant on what the people in this room come to me with. I have great confidence. If they come to me with things that I’m not in love with, I’m going to do it, because I respect them.” The overall picture is far clearer than that, as we’ll see.
          The meeting took place against the backdrop of a looming government shutdown, which will happen on Jan. 19 unless lawmakers can agree on a spending package to avert the first fiscal catastrophe of 2018. It also happened just as U.S. District Judge William Alsup, a liar-Bill Clinton nominee operating in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, inside the sanctuary state of California, temporarily blocked Trump’s move to end the DACA program.
          Initially, Democrats demanded that a DACA fix be part of any spending agreement that is reached to avert a shutdown. This should come as no surprise, as holding government solvency hostage in exchange for other legislative tidbits is a specialty among Democrats. Trump, following California Democrat Dianne Fein-stein’s lead, suggested he would agree to a clean DACA fix, albeit adding that border security must be part of that clean deal, with a more comprehensive bill to come later.
          As Trump put it during the meeting, “To me, a clean bill is a bill of DACA, we take care of them, and we also take care of security.” He also tweeted, “As I made very clear today, our country needs the security of the Wall on the Southern Border, which must be part of any DACA approval.”
          This means funding the border wall, one of the most potent symbols of the Trump divide — it rallies his supporters and drives his critics mad. Never mind that some of the very Democrats who today oppose the wall voted to fund a border wall in 2006. Never mind that Republican and Democrat presidents and legislators have called for a stronger border for decades. Democrats can no longer stand the idea of such a measure now for two reasons. One, deep down, they know that Trump is not just paying lip service to the idea; he means to make it happen. And two, their real immigration strategy is an electoral gambit for votes. Don’t take our word for it — take their own words.
          DACA will expire March 5, thanks to a Trump executive order from 2017 ending the unconstitutional liar-nObama-era program. Trump has indicated all along that he is open to a legislative fix to DACA, which is the way any such program should have come about in the first place. At this point, he may get that legislative fix and funding for the border wall along with it. Comprehensive measures to fix the visa lottery program and switch to merit-based immigration can come later.
          What is taking place here is an elaborate chess game. Trump recognizes that his base is skeptical of any immigration deal with Democrats. And with good reason. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, put together by Democrats, led to decades of chain migration and a massive wave of illegal immigrants. Likewise, the 1986 immigration reform law led to millions more illegal immigrants after Democrats flat out broke a deal with President Ronald Reagan to increase border security in exchange for amnesty for the then-three million-plus illegals residing in the country.
          Democrats have proven time and again they cannot be trusted on this (any?) issue. But in a deeply divided Washington, Trump likely can’t get a border wall or any other reforms without them. So, he must cut a deal.
          If Trump is going to deal with slippery Democrats, he has to make sure Republicans have his back. This means proving his bona fides on immigration. Last year’s executive orders repealing DACA, instilling a ban on immigrants from known terrorist countries, Trump’s most recent action to refuse renewing Temporary Protected Status to 200,000 people from El Salvador who have been here since 2001, and a handful of other enforcement priorities all demonstrate the president’s willingness to get tough on immigration. And it also demonstrates his respect for the Rule of Law, which means a lot to Republicans, even if Democrats can’t really describe what that concept means.
          It’s working, too. “The final border apprehension numbers of 2017, specifically at the southern border, undeniably prove the effectiveness of President Trump’s commitment to securing our borders,” said Tyler Houlton, the acting press secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. “This administration has overseen a 40 percent decrease in 2017 compared with the last year of liar-nObama’s presidency. U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions in Fiscal Year 2017 were at the lowest level in 45 years.”
          Just as Richard Nixon was the only person who could conceivably go to China, perhaps Trump is the only person who can work with Democrats on immigration.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53363

by Nate Jackson:  It wasn’t that long ago that baseball was considered America’s national pastime. Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Stan Musial, Joe DiMaggio, Sandy Koufax, Hank Aaron, Cal Ripken — we could go on and on with its celebrated stars. And that’s not to mention today’s stars, like Clayton Kershaw, Giancarlo Stanton, Mike Trout and others. In recent decades, of course, football has largely eclipsed baseball as America’s favorite sport. But ever since the national anthem became a politicized source of ungrateful discontent among the NFL’s overpaid players, American enthusiasm for the gridiron contest has waned, too.

          Well, a recent poll brings even more troubling news: Just 9% of Americans say America’s pastime is still their favorite sport, and among Americans under 55, fewer of them like baseball than the other kind of football. That’s right; soccer has gained immensely in popularity.
          Now, don’t get us wrong. There’s something entertaining about the shorter length and constant action of soccer — you know, if you like 90 minutes of monotony settled by a 0-0 tie, which, incidentally, is what we blame for the regular soccer game riots around the world. But baseball once was the showcase of American exceptionalism. If we are now to favor soccer, the international, European sport, how are we ever going to Make America Great Again?  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53347

by Culture Beat:  A recently introduced product fad hitting store shelves might just prove to be the death of you. Popping up across the country and marketed as yet another “healthy” product in that genre of back-to-nature lifestyle craze — “raw water.” Using pseudo science and earthy, holistic jargon, these start-ups are even putting snake oil salesmen to shame. So what is raw water? Essentially, it is the raw milk trend only now applied to drinking water. You see, unfiltered, untreated water is better for one’s health because it is free from the polluted tampering of mankind and is therefore more “natural.” As an individual in a Live Water marketing campaign exclaims, “A surge of energy and peacefulness entered my being.”

          These new companies claim to have tapped into ancient water sources untouched by human industry, and for a mere $16 a bottle you yourself can experience this rawest of water. But wait; there’s more. While this latest “nature” fad may sound funny, it is far from it. The Centers for Disease Control’s chief of Waterborne Disease Prevention, Vincent Hill, warns, “If you’re not filtering it, if you’re not disinfecting it, then you are creating a risk for yourself or anybody you give the water to of diseases and other illnesses that can come from the water.”
          It is truly ironic that in the developed world, where scientific knowledge and developments have proven to raise living standards, life expectancy and quality of life, there are those who choose to vilify and distort these achievements as problematic, unhealthy and even dangerous, in order to sell Americans on the flawed concept that human technology equates to the unnatural and therefore unhealthy living. Meanwhile, much of the developing world is plagued with diseases that would have been easily avoided but for the lack of access to clean water technologies.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53346

by Jordan Candler:  Democrat power players like Senators Elizabeth dinky-Warren and commie-Bernie Sanders are hardly irresolute when it comes to praising Big Labor. To them, unions are the lifeblood to economic fairness and tranquility. To be fair, in truth and in theory, unions aren’t inherently disingenuous. The problem is that they’ve been hijacked by political activists and workers are stripped of true representation because, ironically, most workers have no voice. Their money is confiscated and used for purposes for which they might object. Moreover, the nature of how unions have evolved means they are also knee-deep in corruption.

          The Detroit Free Press took a surprising look at some of this corruption in a Sunday analysis. The piece, titled “Embezzlement plagues union offices around U.S., records show,” reports that financial fraud was uncovered in roughly 300 union workplaces over the two most recent years. According to the report, the amount of money stolen was a high as $6.5 million in a single instance. Of course, the Free Press cited other entities to make the point that theft occurs anywhere and everywhere, unionized or not. It quotes law professor Peter Henning, who says, “Unions are not unique. Another group hit hard by embezzlement are churches. You can’t train people to be ethical. It’s just access to money.”
          Fair enough. But there’s also a huge difference: Unions are leftist fan favorites. Which means they are given the benefit of the doubt over and over and over again because too many lawmakers’ political survival and the Democrat Party in general are dependent on union support. For example, over a six-year span, a whopping $1.1 billion was confiscated from union members and handed to leftist activists. No matter what egregious behavior unions engage in, they’ll remain favored tools of Democrats. They have an advantage when it comes to getting away with corruption, just like Harvey Weinstein did in Hollywood. Why? Because the efforts they allegedly support with their money are more important than accountability.
          Not every unionized worker wants Big Labor dictating the rules. Not to mention, who wants to be represented by fraudulent unions? A good place to begin changing the status quo would be implementing the Employee Rights Act. As the Washington Examiner editorializes, “Imagine how much more impressed voters will find it if Republicans reform laws governing unions and workplace representation, which hasn’t been done for three generations.” The Employee Rights Act would instill secret-ballot elections and safeguard personally sensitive information. With more than two-thirds support among Americans, it’s a perfect starter package for helping to avoid cronyism.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53319

by Thomas Gallatin:  The Department of Homeland Security announced Monday that it would not renew Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 200,000 Salvadorans, which had allowed them to legally live and work in the U.S. since 2001. The TPS program established by Congress in 1990 via the Immigration Act was promoted as a means for the U.S. to offer temporary resident status to foreign peoples suffering from armed conflict, environmental disaster or other extraordinary circumstances in their home countries. In practice, however, TPS has primarily served as a backdoor means of conferring amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.

          By refusing to renew these Salvadorans’ TPS, President Donald Trump is once again establishing Rule of Law, while at the same time ratcheting up pressure on Democrats who have been threatening a government shutdown over DACA. None of these Salvadorans are under immediate threat of deportation. They will continue to enjoy legal resident status and work permits up to September 2019. Trump has correctly interpreted the TPS law’s temporary provision and has essentially thrown the issue back to Congress. It will now be up to members of the legislative branch to wrestle with finding a “solution” to prevent deportation or to simply allow the TPS law to be enforced as written.
          Again, this is chess, not checkers. Trump is setting the stage for facing off with Democrats over DACA and the border wall. Democrats, who have long resisted serious illegal immigration controls because they’re after votes, understand that the wall represents not only a physical barrier but also a sustained, long-term commitment by the federal government to finally stem the problem. DACA is for Trump what China was for Nixon. In other words, Trump may be the only Republican who can get away with supporting legislation on DACA, and he knows it. That’s why the deal won’t happen if he doesn’t also get his border wall. With this latest move on TPS, Trump is simply calling the Democrats’ bluff. Will Democrat obstinacy to a border wall trump their loudly expressed concerns for Dreamers? Clearly, Trump is willing and ready to make a deal, but only a deal that reinforces and upholds the Rule of Law.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53337

.

by Todd Johnson:  It was just under a year and half ago that then-candidate Donald Trump was campaigning to eliminate the sequester on defense spending, as well as increase troop levels and military spending on weapons.

          He more than lived up to that campaign promise when he signed the $700 billion 2018 National Defense Authorization Act last December. The congressional authorization was championed by many Republican representatives and senators as being badly needed for the defense of the nation.
          The bill authorizes that numerous weapons systems, including 90 F-35s, 24 F/A-18s, and three littoral combat ships, be added to U.S. military formations in the future. However, these items won’t be arriving anytime soon. Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan stated as much last month when he told reporters that weapons modernization takes time and that no new spending can take place until Congress decides to eliminate the Budget Control Act of 2011, better known as the sequester.
          Yet more troubling than the long procurement cycles for new weapons is the fact that the services are currently finding it difficult to maintain or grow their organizations without compromising standards, let alone to the levels that President Trump wants for the future.
          Recruitment challenges are nothing new for the U.S. military, but the dynamics of finding qualified individuals in the 21st century is a real problem. Recent numbers show that 70% of 17-24 year-olds don’t even meet the minimum requirements for military service. According to the Defense Department, “Only 1% of young people are both ‘eligible and inclined to have conversation with’ the military about possible service.” The pool of recruits has shrunk even more over the last couple of years as the unemployment rate has dropped to record lows, so the services have found themselves having to be creative in recruiting and reenlistment practices.
          The U.S. Army recently announced, and later rescinded, a plan to provide waivers to individuals who had a history of mental issues, including bipolar disorders and self-mutilation. Last year, the Army accepted 50% more Category 4 recruits — individuals who score in the bottom third of military exams — than in 2016.
          The U.S. Navy last month pushed out several policy changes designed to keep individuals in the active component. The changes include allowing individuals who fail the physical fitness test twice to remain on active duty. Vice Adm. Robert Burke, the chief of naval personnel, wrote in a message to the fleet, “Adjustments to physical readiness program policies reflect a continued emphasis to invest in and retain our most important resource, our sailors.”
          Lastly, the Air Force continues to grapple with a shortage of pilots and the problem is getting worse. According to recent reports, the USAF is short almost 2,000 pilots and much of the blame is directed at the combination of multiple overseas tours and the airline industry aggressively pursuing talent. The Air Force has attempted to stem the exodus through a combination of bonuses and a reduction of administrative duties but it hasn’t worked.
          Meanwhile, the pace of U.S. military operations around the globe continues to grow and the time is soon approaching when the services will find themselves having to drop standards to even lower levels in order to meet manning requirements. This impending disaster must be avoided at all costs, which is why the Joint Chiefs must work with the secretary of Defense and other administration officials on how to avoid this potential crisis.
          The strength of the American military has always been its people and that’s why it’s important that the services not relax personnel standards in order to meet artificial strength levels. It’s not good for the long term health of organization, our relationships with our allies, and most importantly, our nation’s ability to fight and win our future conflicts and wars.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53336

by Paul Albaugh:  If the 2017 jobs scene is any indication of what the year 2018 is going to look like, then America’s economy is going to continue to grow at levels we haven’t seen in over a decade. And despite the Left’s continuing rants about Trump being a racist, the December jobs report tells a completely different story.

          Recall that during Trump’s campaign for the presidency, he specifically told black voters his economic agenda would do far more for them than liar-Hillary Clinton’s — or that of any other Democrat candidate in history. In an unscripted portion of a speech given in Dimondale, Michigan, he said, “You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58% of your youth is unemployed — what the hell do you have to lose?”
          Like every other Republican for a generation, Trump received only 8% of the black vote on Election Day, but based on employment numbers for blacks, at least those 8% can feel vindicated. In the speech mentioned beforehand, Trump also promised that after his first four years he would win 95% of the black vote during his re-election bid — something that no Republican candidate has done since Reconstruction. Let’s just say that his comment was typical Trumpian boasting, but it’s something that perhaps ought to come true.
          So what of the jobs numbers? The Wall Street Journal reported that headline unemployment remained at 4.1% with the economy creating 148,000 new jobs. The U-6 number, a better, fuller measure, sits at 8.1% — a far cry better than its high of 17% under Barack liar-nObama. But one figure that really jumped out at economists was the headline rate of unemployment for black Americans, which fell to 6.8%, the lowest it has been since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started tracking employment data in 1972. That’s a 45-year time frame, and it’s great news as we start 2018.
          The Journal further notes, “The black jobless rate fell into the 7%-8% range in 1999-2000, before the dot-com bubble burst, and briefly in 2007 before the financial panic. But it climbed back to as high as 16.8% in 2010 before a long, slow decline as the economy recovered.” But now it’s at 6.8% and the number is likely to go down further once Trump’s economic agenda kicks into full gear.
          But wait, there’s more. It turns out that it’s not just black Americans benefiting from the economic gains during Trump’s first year in office. Overall, minorities across the board have seen the greatest gains in employment. “Over the past year, the unemployment rate has dropped 17% for Hispanics, 14% for African Americans and 11% for Asians.” Hispanics have seen unemployment drop to record-low levels, standing at 4.9% in December, and Asians have seen unemployment drop to a record low of 2.5%.
          So, the question remains, are Trump’s economic policies and ambitions for economic growth really racist as so many leftists claim? Of course not. In fact, Trump’s deregulation and Republican tax cuts benefit everyone.
          The Left, of course, will hear none of this and will continue to paint Trump as a racist while Democrats who run America’s cities push destructive socialist policies that left our economy stagnant for nearly a decade. Democrats are hoping the policies that have kept minorities on urban poverty plantations for years will prevail, and you can bet that they and their Leftmedia allies will do everything imaginable to undermine Trump’s successes.
          Leftists can’t stand that his economic agenda is producing positive results for Americans. They can’t stand that there is economic optimism among most Americans that we haven’t seen in over a decade. And they really can’t fathom how a man who has been slammed by the media for the past year as being a sexist, racist, bigoted and, most recently, “mentally unfit” for office has somehow managed to produce more positive results for Americans in his first year of office than his predecessor did in eight years. Their socialist, utopian dreams have been shattered, and frankly, that’s making America great, again.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53333

by Robin Smith:  Why does health care in America cost so much and increase annually? Why do medicines, even generics, get more expensive? It’s primarily because the practice of medicine is not a service delivered in a free market driven by economic principles. Other goods and services sought by the public feature known prices and the consumer is both the payer and the decision-maker. Not so with health care.

          In American health care, we have managed health insurance, not care. Almost all of the debate about policy revolves around the current system that empowers the insurers and/or the government as the decision-makers, the payers and, in reality, the customer — not the patient.
          So, while some have really well-intended discussions and policy debates, unless the consumer is in control of making informed decisions and holds the responsibility of payment, there will not be authentic health care reform. There will be little more than tweaking policies that address the actual customers — the insurance companies and/or the government.
          We need insurance policies. But we need insurance policies that pay when we have catastrophic events or expensive procedures, not the average wellness check-up or routine physicals. If Americans used their homeowners insurance policy or their auto insurance just as they use their medical insurance policy, the rates would be unaffordable and out of control too. The time for Health Savings Accounts is now. The time for price transparency of medicines and procedures is now. If Americans want to see the cost of care and medicines decline while simultaneously increasing access due to affordability, true reforms must be made to return the service of health care and medicines to a free market.
          We also need the innovation of new medicines, devices and procedures. As long as a third-party payer controls the terms of coverage, care delivered and medicines on a formulary, the decisions are not made by patients, but by insurers or a government agency. A horrible side-effect is that those who are uninsured get hammered by the cost of care that is delivered outside a contracted rate, and they pay exorbitant costs.
          So let’s do as Dr. Tom Coburn, former U.S. senator from Oklahoma, did in his recent Washington Examiner analysis. Let’s look at ways that real reform can come to health care and not just address health insurance.
          Dr. Coburn focused primarily on the cost of pharmaceuticals, or prescription drugs. His simple solution is to reintroduce actual free markets to the sale and purchase of medications. Chiefly, Coburn says, just make the net price of all medicines available in the public domain and easy accessible by the consumer, the patient, not a contracted formulary of tiered/approved medicines by an insurance company. As it relates to insurance reimbursement for health care items ranging from very specialized medicines that cost upwards of $10,000 per month to the average wellness checkup, allow value-based payment with data on cost and efficacy made available. Simpler, if a hammer will do, there’s no need for a sledge hammer.
          Throughout the former senator’s analysis, he refers to an extensive report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine entitled, “Making Medicines Affordable: A National Imperative.” Take one guess what recommendations are offered by a government-funded study by a government-run group? Bingo! The study’s sponsors recommend more bureaucratic, centralized control. That government report, by the way, will cost you $67.00 to read online.
          Coburn argues for the pharmaceutical market what should be argued throughout all of health care: Transparency and the free market work; government control does not.
          In health care, we routinely pay for services that are very important without knowing their cost, thanks to the control of government and insurers. Not only does the American consumer need to demand price transparency, the debate surrounding “Big Pharma” must also address the unbelievably lengthy and costly in place for new medicines. A published study by the renowned Tuft’s University recorded that “the average cost to bring just one drug to the market is about $2.6 billion. It takes an average of 15 years from the time a drug developer first begins testing a new formula until the FDA approves it. Only 1 in 1,000 drug formulas will ever enter pre-clinical testing, and of those, roughly 8 percent will ultimately receive FDA approval.”
          Fifteen years and $2.6 billion are averages for a new medicine to be approved. Without argument, the safety of patients is absolutely mandatory. Yet the U.S. government process is not constructed to respond to the needs of patients in the here and now. Can you imagine if the smartphone or computer industry was controlled in a similar manner? Would Apple find it profitable to be able to bring a new product to market only every 15 years? The first iPhone was advertised on June 29, 2007. Look at the improvements to the technology, the innovation and the response to consumer needs while keeping the costs within range for mass consumption during that decade-long window.
          Summing this up, America does not have a health care problem rooted in the actual delivery of medicine. We have a health care billing issue that hides information that would create competition, provide a patient-centered approach and permit control by the actual consumer. Just take a look at the National Health System currently in England. Up to 50,000 surgeries have been canceled due to the onslaught of influenza that has hit a system understaffed and ill-prepared to be responsive to sudden change. You see, when you socialize the health care market, everyone gets a little with no incentive for excellence or to prioritize the patient experience.
          If you want the best health care, then return to free markets and the characteristics that truly empower the patients.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/532881

by Political Editors:  A favorite straw man regularly held up by anti-gun activists in their endless attempt to limit Americans’ Second Amendment rights is the supposedly significant problem of gun law “loopholes.” This false argument is often trotted out as justification for the calls for more gun-control laws. One example of this loophole fallacy is the claim of no background check requirements for firearm purchases at gun shows. This false claim has been repeatedly debunked and yet anti-gun activists and much of the mainstream media still repeat it as if it were gospel truth.

          Recently, another one of these gun law loophole fallacies was debunked, and royally so. In 2015, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was commissioned for some research by three Democrat members of Congress, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren (D-MA), who are well known for their anti-gun rights crusading. Motivated by a 2011 Michael Bloomberg-funded anti-gun campaign called “Point, Click, Fire” — which claimed that in supposedly largely unregulated online transactions, 62% of private sellers would sell a firearm to an individual who couldn’t pass a background check — the three Democrats sought to have the GAO officially validate this loophole problem.
          However, The Washington Free Beacon reports, “Between July 2015 and November 2017 investigators from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), following up on a congressional request, tried to make the illegal private gun purchases through a number of online forums and market places. They made 72 attempts over that time but couldn’t complete a single sale using legitimate sites.” [emphasis added]
          Not only does the GAO report largely debunk Bloomberg and company’s online gun-purchasing loophole fabrication, it reinforces the fact that the cause of criminal violence stems not from the legal availability of guns but from the hearts and minds of lawless individuals. Lawful gun owners are simply not the problem, and this study only further cements this reality. As our friends at 2ndVote so effectively point out, a gun has yet to act alone to kill anyone.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53322

by Arnold Ahlert:  Under the heading, “be careful what you wish for, you might just get it,” the satisfaction  Democrats, other leftist organizations and their media allies derived from President Donald Trump’s decision to disband the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, led by Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, may be short-lived.

          Not that they get it — yet. Thus, the reliably feverish Sen. Chuck clown-Schumer (D-NY) reiterated the Left’s tiresome tropes that ensuring the integrity of American elections constitutes “a front to suppress the vote” and an effort to “perpetrate dangerous and baseless claims.” clown-Schumer further insisted the Committee’s disbandment demonstrates that “ill-founded proposals that just appeal to a narrow group of people won’t work, and we hope they’ll learn this lesson elsewhere.”
          clown-Schumer’s assertion that protecting elections resonates solely with a “narrow group” is laughable. A 2015 CBS News poll revealed a majority of Americans considered voter fraud to be fairly widespread, and a 2016 Gallup poll revealed a whopping 80% of Americans favor requiring voters to provide photo ID to cast a ballot. Moreover, a 2007 Gallup poll and a 2012 Washington Post poll both revealed more Americans are concerned with voter fraud than voter suppression.
          So why did Trump shut down the Commission? “Despite substantial evidence of voter fraud, many states have refused to provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with basic information relevant to its inquiry,” Trump said in a brief statement last Wednesday. “Rather than engage in endless legal battles at taxpayer expense, today I signed an executive order to dissolve the Commission, and have asked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues and determine next courses of action.”
          Leftists will likely regret the shift and fittingly, they have only themselves to blame. As columnist Thomas Lifson explains, Democrats made so-called Russian hacking of the election “a national security issue. This opens the door for DHS — armed with far more investigatory power than any commission might exercise — to go full bore at election fraud,” he writes. “President Trump tried it the nice way, only to encounter obstruction. Now it is time for Plan B, and I am pretty sure that Democrats will not like it at all.”
          Kobach, who led the Commission along with Pence, was equally explicit. “What’s happening is a tactical shift where the mission of the commission is being handed off to Homeland Security without the stonewalling by Democrats,” he stated. Kobach also hammered reliably leftist organizations like the ACLU and the NAACP, along with congressional Democrats and their Commission members, who attempted undermine its work at every turn. “They have absolutely no interest in stopping voter fraud,” Kobach declared. “It’s truly extraordinary that one party in our system has made clear that they don’t care.”
          The most critical aspect of the change? Leftists who often use the courts to get what they want (or prevent that which they don’t) will no longer have that option. “The investigation will continue. And it will continue more efficiently and more effectively,” Kobach warned. “By throwing their food in the air, [Democrats] just lost their seat at the table.”
          At least eight lawsuits have been filed against the Commission, largely based on accusations that asking for state voter data, much of which is on the public record, violated open-records laws, or breached privacy protections. Moreover, Democrat Commission member and Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap filed his own lawsuit, accusing the commission of hiding information from him. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly partially agreed, saying the panel should provide him the requested documents.
          Despite the commission being disbanded, Dunlap insists it still has to honor the judge’s decision. “I didn’t want to go to court,” he told The Daily Signal. “All I wanted, honest to God, was to participate and get an answer to all of my questions.”
          Dunlap was also concerned about the change of course. “How many driver’s licenses has Homeland Security issued?” he asked rhetorically. “None. How many elections has Homeland Security run? None.”
          Despite Dunlap’s take, DHS’s outsider status is a good thing. Driver’s licenses? Twelve states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Vermont and Washington, plus the District of Columbia — allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses. Of those 12, only Utah favored Trump in the 2016 election. Only three — Washington, Nevada and Hawaii — were willing to provide the Commission with any information.
          As for running an election, Americans might be shocked to discover that at least 38 states currently or will soon allow voters to register online, and 14 currently or will soon permit voters to register on Election Day. Moreover, according to Ballotpedia, 34% of the states have no ID requirement to vote, 24% have non-strict, non-photo voter ID laws, 20% have non-strict, photo ID laws, 6% have strict, non-photo ID laws, and 16% have strict, photo ID laws. In other words, there is ample opportunity to commit voter fraud.
          Nonetheless, Democrats would have Americans believe lax registration and voting procedures, coupled with wholesale resistance to investigations, has a non-existent or marginal impact on the integrity of elections. Moreover, they insist any effort to conduct an investigation that would either reveal fraud — or the lack thereof that would validate their assertions — amounts to “a wild-goose chase for voter fraud, demonizing the very American voters whom we should all be helping to participate — with the not-so-secret goal of making voting harder with unnecessary barriers,” according to Dale Ho, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project.
          That would be the same ACLU whose executive director, Anthony D. Romero, called for the DOJ “to appoint a special prosecutor to independently investigate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russian interference in November’s election and for Congress to create a select committee, akin to the Watergate select committee, to ensure an adequate and public resolution of this crisis” — to “preserve our constitutional values.”
          Thus, some allegations of voter fraud are “more equal than others.” And despite Democrat denials, the Commission did document 8,471 cases of double-voting in elections in 21 states, and 938 voter fraud convictions since 2000. Moreover, the same Democrats who have issues with the DHS’s current effort to supersede their resistance, had no problem when liar-nObama administration DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson determined that state election systems were “critical infrastructure,” requiring federal oversight due to “hacking” concerns — despite no evidence of hacking.
          Again for leftists, hacking by extra-national entities is highly problematic, but “hacking” by thousands of potentially ineligible or double voting individuals, including “extra-nationals” (read: illegals), is no problem at all.
          In short, the Democrat Party’s stance on investigations of voter fraud is highly selective. Any DHS investigations that might prove inimical to their interests amounts to “disenfranchisement,” while any investigation that even hints at delegitimizing the current president — courtesy of a Special Counsel armed with extra-constitutional power — must be pursued with unrelenting vigor.
          How Democrats miss the searing irony that the special counsel’s investigation provides a powerful justification for the DHS’s investigation is anyone’s guess.
          Let the proverbial chips fall where they may.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53283

by Political Editors:  The New York Times recently reported that the leftist organization Media Matters, founded by David Brock, had spent $200,000 funding an effort in 2016 to bring down Donald Trump via allegations of sexual assault. The Times reports that leftist organizations are still “raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to support accusers who come forward with charges against President Trump and members of Congress.”      Motivated by the success of the #MeToo movement, which has been credited in helping to expose and bring down famous and powerful men in Hollywood and the mainstream media, as well as prompt the resignation of members of Congress like former Democrat Sen. Al Franken, Brock and other leftists seek to do the same to Trump and Republican candidates. Just as Mark Alexander recently warned.

          California lawyer Lisa Bloom received significant amounts of funding as she sought “to encourage victims to bring forward similar claims against Republican politicians.” Her efforts “included offering to sell alleged victims’ stories to TV outlets in return for a commission for herself, arranging a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempting to secure a six-figure payment for another woman who ultimately declined to come forward after being offered as much as $750,000,” The Hill reported. Bloom justified the funding claiming that it was needed in order “to ensure the safety” of the accusers.
          The fact of the matter is, this has nothing to do with concerns over the problem of sexual assault or harassment against women. Instead, it’s all about politics. In an American Bridge 21st Century Foundation internal memo from last year, Brock explains, “We are going to resist the normalization of Donald Trump. Trump has the legal authority, but we have the moral authority — and the moral responsibility to oppose him.” In other words, let the witch hunts begin.
          Ron Rotunda, a professor at Chapman University School of Law, noted, “These victims have serious stories to tell and we have to get justice for them. But we undercut that when people are paid for their testimony. It taints it. … The problem is, if a real victim accepts a payoff it undercuts their story. That’s just a fact of life.” The truth of the matter is, by politicizing the issue, Democrats are guaranteeing that it will be immediately assumed that every accuser must have some political motivation rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. In other words, fewer people will believe them. How does that help women who are real victims?  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53279

by Brian Mark Weber:  Leftists in this country really have a problem with the free flow of information, and they’ll do anything they can to control the exchange of ideas on the airwaves, in print, or on the Internet. What they couldn’t do through net neutrality regulations they’re doing via other means, but the goal is the same: to determine for all those brainwashed deplorables out there what is truth and what is fake news. Good luck with that.

          Facebook already suppressed conservative news in its feed and then tried to label fake news in order to tamp down the conservative message, but it backfired and actually resulted in more interest in the “fake” pieces. But there’s more to this, at least where Facebook executives are concerned. They’re worried that many Americans might actually favor all those really popular ideas like stopping illegal immigration, lowering corporate taxes, deciding whether to purchase health insurance, and keeping their own doctors. Believing that average Americans are too stupid to know any better, Facebook is now helpfully suggesting further reading along with news reports and articles via its “Related Articles” feature.
          Facebook states that “academic research on correcting misinformation has shown that putting a strong image, like a red flag, next to an article may actually entrench deeply held beliefs — the opposite effect to what we intended.” It’s like a university marking The Federalist Papers as a suspicious book, but discovering that it caused a rush at the campus book store. (If only that would happen.)
          Facebook’s Big Brotherly policy goes on to state that “Related Articles, by contrast, are simply designed to give more context, which our research has shown is a more effective way to help people get to the facts. Indeed, we’ve found that when we show Related Articles next to a false news story, it leads to fewer shares than when the Disputed Flag is shown.”
          Does anyone want Facebook, Twitter, MSNBC or the government determining what is fake or what is factual? And where was the hullabaloo about fake news before Donald Trump became president or before conservatives discovered the mediums of talk radio and the Internet? For decades the truth didn’t matter, but now it’s so important that we need others to verify the truth for us in advance? This is nonsensical, not to mention dangerous.
          Jim Geraghty writes, “‘Fake news’ doesn’t just come from Moscow or Lithuanian server farms. It comes anytime someone offers something false, inaccurate, or deeply misleading, and people choose to believe it and spread it to their friends. In many cases, those who spread it and amplify it want it to be true, because it confirms part of their previous worldview. If you hate Republicans, you want to believe that their tax bill is doing nothing but terrible things to good people, that it’s living up to Nancy Pulosi’s label of ‘Armageddon,’ and that it’s taking away health care from innocent 7-year-old autistic boys. If this dire scenario is true, it means you, the good outspoken liberal who keeps berating your relatives for their intolerably retrograde political views at Thanksgiving, is a hero, and your relatives are monsters for disagreeing with you.”
          But this goes far beyond disagreements at Thanksgiving dinner. This progressive effort to control “fake news” is being sold as a response to Russia trying to steal the election from liar-Hillary Clinton by infiltrating social media. (Yes, millions of people still really believe the Russians tipped the election in favor of Donald Trump. Except there’s no evidence, and what few real facts we have easily shoot down the conspiracy theory.)
          Case in point: The notion that the Russians used Facebook to spread fake news about liar-Clinton clearly falls flat on its face when real facts are analyzed.
          Philip H. Devoe writes, “Democratic strongholds such as Maryland and Washington, D.C., were targeted significantly more than swing states such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; more of the geographically targeted ads ran in 2015 than 2016; ad spending in Wisconsin totaled just $44 during the general election, against $1,925 during the primary; and Pennsylvania’s ad spending totaled $300.”
          Got that? The Russians spent $44 in critical Wisconsin. And somehow this pittance had a greater influence on the Dairy State’s voters than liar-Hillary Clinton’s failure to make even a single stop there during the general election season?
          The numbers don’t lie. Clearly, the Russians were either inept in their understanding of how to throw an election to Republicans (you can’t paint Maryland red no matter how many Facebook ads you run in the state) or they weren’t trying to influence the outcome of the election at all. Facebook, perhaps more than any other social media platform, makes it pretty easy for anyone with an Internet connection to target specific demographics and influence voters with ads. A high school student could’ve tampered with public opinion during the election in a more effective manner than the Russians.
         As Philip Bump states in The Washington Post, “The unusual possibilities offered by Facebook targeting can help contribute to the sense that the Russians did something especially clever. But there’s a difference between a sophisticated tool and sophisticated targeting.”
          The concerted effort to shield the public from alleged fake news is nothing more than an attempt to control our access to information. For all the talk about keeping the Internet neutral, the Left sure does a good job of skewing information in its favor. But in the end, these attempts to identify what is fake or what is real will fail. Since the founding of the republic, newspapers and the media have twisted the facts or simply fabricated information to form opinions in the minds of readers and viewers. Somehow, there have always been enough smart people to separate fact from fiction.
          And that’s what really bothers the manipulators of information. Whether through “Related Articles” on Facebook, selective silencing of Twitter accounts, or the many left-leaning “fact-check” websites, when progressives try to make up our minds for us, we tend to seek out other platforms for sharing ideas. It’s called freedom. And it’s worth defending.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53263

by Political Editors:  Back in early December, House Minority Leader Nancy Pulosi (D-CA) warned that the GOP’s tax bill would usher in catastrophe on a global scale. She literally declared, “It is the end of the world!… This is Armageddon!” We’re not sure what version of the Bible Pulosi has been reading, because the “Armageddon” that Republican tax reform has unleashed doesn’t look anything like “the end of the world.” Quite the contrary. As we noted the day the tax legislation was finalized, several companies began rewarding employees with large bonuses and increased hourly pay. And that trend has only continued.

          American and Southwest Airlines announced Tuesday that they would be giving employees bonuses of $1,000 each. Southwest also stated that it would be ordering more jets from Boeing. Several banks have gotten on board the “Armageddon” train, with U.S. Bank announcing $1,000 bonuses for upwards of 60,000 employees and a hike to its minimum wage to $15 per hour. U.S. Bancorp president Andy Cecere said, “We believe that tax reform is positive for the U.S. economy because it provides an immediate opportunity to benefit our employees, our communities and our customers.”
          And insurance company Aflac announced on Tuesday that it would increase its investment in its U.S. employees and operations by $250 million over the next three years. Aflac will increase its 401(k) match contribution to employees’ first 4% from 50% up to 100%. Aaon Inc. also announced $1,000 bonuses for all employees. And these companies represent just a fraction of the real positive effect the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has had on business and their employees. Here is a fuller list. Even The New York Times has acknowledged the Trump effect on the American economy, which tax reform is sure to accelerate.
          But after nearly a decade of Americans suffering under a stagnant economy, minimal job growth and lower wages, Pulosi and her fellow Democrats are working to frame the Republican/Trump tax cuts as bad for the country? Because keeping more of your hard-earned money will lead to the “end of the world” or something? Please. The only ones for whom tax cuts may prove to be Armageddon are Democrats and their income redistribution schemes. Here in “flyover country,” the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a good thing for working class Americans, who are sure to experience its real financial benefits. Most people value real money over empty rhetoric.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53250

by Michael Swartz:  In the late 1930s, a film called “Reefer Madness” was released as a morality tale emphasizing the dangers of marijuana use. Since that era, and even when the film was used as a method of spoofing what advocates of legalization considered draconian laws and old-fashioned societal mores regarding pot, federal law has remained consistent in making it illegal, including for medical use. Even in Colorado and Washington where marijuana use is legal under state law, smoking it for any reason, medical or not, puts the user under a very slight risk of arrest and incarceration under federal statutes.

          As marijuana laws have been liberalized and penalties reduced by local and state governments to a point where it’s no more of an issue than a speeding ticket, guidance from Barack liar-nObama’s Justice Department gave local prosecutors the option to maintain a “hands-off” approach despite the fact that marijuana laws were unchanged at the federal level.
          Thursday, however, Attorney General Jeff Sessions — who’s been known as a hardliner on drug laws — sent out a memorandum to all United States attorneys rescinding the liar-nObama-era guidance. “Given the Department’s well-established general principles,” Sessions wrote, “previous nationwide guidance specific to marijuana enforcement is unnecessary and is rescinded, effective immediately.”
          Proponents of legalization fret that this open season for prosecutors will kill the nascent marijuana industry in the crib. Reason’s Scott Shackford argues, “Whether or not a marijuana grower ends up in the crosshairs of a prosecutor depends on that prosecutor’s own goals and discretion, not a consistent, predictable application of law.” While this is true, we’ve known for some time that enforcement of law is not consistent or predictable in our hyper-political nation — not that it should be an excuse, but the genie appears to be pretty far out of the bottle now despite the belief by some that we are still a nation of laws.
          This call by Sessions also rekindled the idea that maybe it’s time for Congress to act and allow states to have their say. “The Founders did not write the Constitution to impose uniformity on hemp,” notes Charles C.W. Cooke in National Review.
          Cooke’s colleague Jim Geraghty concurs, convinced that Sessions is taking on “an unnecessary fight” with his memo. “We can argue whether the country would be a better or worse place with more marijuana users,” Geraghty continues. But the case of Colorado would seem to be a contention for returning to a more restrictive regimen, or at least slowing down the march toward state legalization. Currently, 29 states and the District of Columbia allow pot for at least medicinal use, with California the most recent to liberalize its laws.
          Yet because we have no constitutional guidance on hemp (or any number of other things in which the federal government now asserts power), the state venue may be the proper place to have the argument. David French, also of National Review, makes a strong case for this by citing Colorado Senator Cory Gardner’s frustration with the Sessions memo. Gardner promises to hold up any Justice Department nominees until Sessions changes course and keeps a promise he made to the senator before his confirmation. Yet “Gardner is positioned exactly where he needs to be to reform America’s drug laws,” says French. “As a senator, he could introduce or co-sponsor legislation that explicitly decriminalizes marijuana at the federal level and leaves marijuana laws to the states. And there are multiple powerful arguments he could make in support of such a bill.” Instead, he’s blocking nominations — and he doesn’t even support legalization.
          In reality, all Sessions did was shift policy to say that federal drug laws should be enforced, but it’s now largely up to the discretion of local U.S. attorneys. And the ones in Colorado announced they’ll make no effort to enforce the law.
          In the end, it may be worth considering that “Reefer Madness” came out at a time when our nation’s moral compass still pointed more or less true north, but was allowing the expansion of the federal government at a rapid pace under FDR’s New Deal. We can’t agree that the compass is still pointing in the proper direction, but we can assert with confidence that this is an issue best left to the states, not the federal government — just as the Founders intended. Sessions is correct when he speaks of prosecutors managing the Justice Department’s “finite resources,” but he fails to advocate for how this issue can best be addressed.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53268

by Jordan Candler:  December’s jobs report was underwhelming, particularly when compared to recent months. For example, 252,000 jobs were generated in November, but December saw just 148,000 — a month-over-month reduction of 104,000 and about 42,000 fewer than economists’ expectations, according to CNBC. At 4.1%, the headline unemployment rate remained static, though the U-6 rate, a better measure, ticked up to 8.1% from 8%. Most of the jobs report blame is being pegged on the retail industry, which fell by roughly 20,000 jobs, and that certainly makes sense as brick and mortar stores are still grappling with Internet sales. But other factors may be at play.

          While the jobs numbers failed to meet economists’ expectations, there was one person who anticipated the possibility of a lackluster report. On Nov. 30, meteorologist and Patriot Post contributor Joe Bastardi warned, “Caution: December Weather May Cause Skidding of the Economy.” Americans were accustomed to unseasonable warm Decembers in recent years, but Bastardi foresaw a major change this time around. He wrote, “The potential for more extreme cold between Dec. 10 and Jan. 10 has us very concerned.” In fact, his research revealed that the coming cold “would have a huge effect on the economy in almost all sectors from the Plains and areas east.”
          Of course, climate change alarmists are tying the U.S. deep freeze to man-made global warming. Guys like scum-Al Gore are proclaiming, “It’s bitter cold in parts of the US, but climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains that’s exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis.” Which is rubbish — analogs derived from Bastardi provide example after example of similar extreme patterns before global warming was even part of the discussion. And deep freezes like our current one add credence to the idea that cold weather hurts the economy far more than warm weather.
          By the way, Bastardi expects milder temperatures later this month, but anomalous cold could return in February. So a similar jobs report could presumably be in the offing when February’s economic analysis is released. January’s buzzkill report is neither the fault of Donald Trump’s economic policies — in fact, investors appear mostly unbothered — nor the result of man-made global warming. But expect naysayers to portray it that way anyway.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53264.