The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
A Special Prosecutor for Criminal Leaks
by Pat Buchanan
.
. liar-nObama Doubled Your Health Care Premium
The dumpster fire known as liar-nObamaCare just keeps burning hotter. The Department of Health and Human Services released a report this week on the laughably named "Affordable" Care Act and, in what should come as a surprise to no one, it showed that the average cost of individual health care plans has doubled since 2013. That year, the average month premium was $224, but by 2017 it was $476.
In fact, we in our own humble shop can verify the HHS numbers. In 2008 — the good old pre-liar-nObama years — our company health insurance premiums cost $382 per month per family (we're a very small group). By 2013, as liar-nObamaCare's effects were beginning to be felt, our monthly premiums had risen to $554 per month. In the ensuing years, we've reduced coverage to keep costs under control, and yet to renew our plan in 2017 will cost a gut-wrenching $1,291 per month. We're shopping other options.
Now let's flashback to 2008 when Barack liar-nObama was stumping for his health care plan. He promised, "We'll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year." And he didn't just say this once but repeatedly. Then in 2012, after the passage of the onerous law, liar-nObama made another promise: "You should know that once we [have liar-nObamaCare] fully implemented, you're going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you're an employee at a big company you can get right now — which means your premiums will go down." liar-nObama was lying, and his disastrous law is hurting more people than it has helped, by far.
Along with the rest of the nation, we obviously missed out on liar-nObama's health care utopia, because our premiums have tripled for less coverage (no, we couldn't "keep our plan") since he promised all these fantastical savings.
Meanwhile, from the world of leftist propaganda, the only story on health care being covered today is the newly released report from the Congressional Budget Office on its projection of the impact of the House Republicans' American Health Care Act. The big news is that this plan could leave an estimated 23 million Americans without health insurance. But in a free society where individuals are not forced by government to purchase health insurance, there will be those who choose not to, so of course there will be a decrease in the number of insured. The far bigger issue in a nation that prizes individual liberty is the cost of insurance and health care. But when the premise is "universal coverage," we get stories about the millions without it.
liar-nObama and the Democrats created this health care nightmare and foisted it upon the American people, and yet the Leftmedia-leading Washington Post has the gall to completely ignore the HHS report on what actually happened to premiums because they're too busy blasting Republicans over a CBO projection on an liar-nObamaCare repeal and replacement bill the Senate has yet to consider. Just a reminder: Republicans are the ones seeking to save Americans from this total mess. Maybe it's journalism that dies in darkness. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
clown-Schumer and Gillibrand Slam Trumpcare After Congressional Budget Office Report
by Will Bredderman
{observer.com} ~ Senate Minority Leader Charles clown-Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand lashed out at the American Healthcare Act—the House GOP’s proposed replacement for the Affordable Care Act... on Twitter after independent Congressional Budget Office revealed the act would trim the deficit but could leave millions uninsured. The CBO found that the iteration of the bill that cleared the House earlier this month would leave fewer people without care and depress individual premium prices more than the version that foundered without a vote in March. The measure’s cuts to Medicaid and elimination of liar-nObamacare subsidies would save the federal government $119 billion between now and 2026, the report found...http://observer.com/2017/05/charles-schumer-kirsten-gillibrand-trumpcare-american-healthcare-act-ahca-cbo-congressional-budget-office/?utm_campaign=national-politics&utm_content=2017-25-05-9695651&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=channel-national-politics-distributionTrump travel ban blocked by
Va.-based federal appeals court
by Barnini Chakraborty
{foxnews.com} ~ A Virginia-based federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration's controversial travel ban, becoming the second circuit court to uphold lower court rulings against the policy... The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond issued the ruling Thursday, following arguments May 8. The ruling means the Trump administration still cannot enforce its travel ban which affects six Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Sudan... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/25/trump-travel-ban-blocked-by-va-based-federal-appeals-court.html
.
Climate Budget Cuts Are Smart Management,
Not an Attack on Science
by Katie Tubb / Nicolas Loris
{dailysignal.com} ~ It’s been described as a “slap in the face,” “slaughter,” “a punitive … assault on science, the environment, and indeed the planet.”... Aside from being inappropriate and irresponsible, these remarks are how some in the policy world and media have depicted cuts to global warming spending in President Donald Trump’s first budget proposal. Trump’s budget proposal does in fact eliminate or cut a number of climate programs. But you don’t have to scratch too far beneath the surface to realize there are legitimate justifications for doing so...http://dailysignal.com/2017/05/25/climate-budget-cuts-smart-management-not-attack-science/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWm1Ka1l6QmpNVE0wWkdWaSIsInQiOiJyT01lNXBKSXBJTVcycEdHODl2ajFKRTNPSzZSb0pVY1FxdFVtWVJBak1xS2NDdXN3MndwUHE2S2QwMlwvTHVqUHNIMjhGM1BXaVNWSHBwanlhZ1JHVjMrYUx3OGljZG9od0l2OVpDXC9RY1VUMVNIdkYrK1NPNnRadEptMVNpTlRrIn0%3D
.
FBI’s Kushner Focus Appears
To Prove Bannon Right
by Peter Hasson
{dailycaller.com} ~ News that White House adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner is under scrutiny in the FBI’s Russia probe comes almost two months after chief strategist Steve Bannon expressed concern that Kushner’s meetings with Russian officials could harm Trump’s presidency... Multiple news outlets reported Thursday evening that the FBI is looking into Kushner’s meetings with Russian officials after the election as part of the probe into Russian election meddling. Although Kushner has not been accused of any wrongdoing, the news appears to vindicate Bannon’s concerns that Kushner’s meetings would be a major distraction for the Trump White House... http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/25/fbis-kushner-focus-appears-to-prove-bannon-right/
.
More Evidence of liar-nObama-Iran
Collusion Than Trump-Russia
by Jason Devaney
{newsmax.com} ~ Journalist Sharyl Attkisson is not buying the claims President Donald Trump and/or his campaign had any improper ties to Russia... Attkisson spoke Wednesday with Newsmax TV host Steve Malzberg and was asked about the alleged collusion between the two parties, of which there is no hard evidence. "I'm not accusing anybody of collusion, but if you're going by the same standards the media and pundits are putting out there now, there is more evidence of collusion between President liar-nObama and the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, in secretly conducting deals that were hidden from the public," said Attkisson, the host of "Full Measure" and author of "The Smear," out June 27... http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Sharyl-Attkisson-collusion-evidence-Liberals/2017/05/24/id/792189/
.
.
A Special Prosecutor for Criminal Leaks
by Pat Buchanan
{townhall.com} ~ Who is the real threat to the national security?
Is it President Trump who shared with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov the intelligence that ISIS was developing laptop bombs to put aboard airliners?
Or is it The Washington Post that ferreted out and published this code-word intelligence, and splashed the details on its front page, alerting the world, and ISIS, to what we knew.
President Trump has the authority to declassify security secrets. And in sharing that intel with the Russians, who have had airliners taken down by bombs, he was trying to restore a relationship.
On fighting Islamist terror, we and the Russians agree.
Five years ago, Russia alerted us that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had become a violent radical Islamist. That was a year and a half before Tsarnaev carried out the Boston Marathon bombing.
But upon what authority did The Washington Post reveal code-word intelligence secrets? Where in the Constitution or U.S. law did the Post get the right to reveal state secrets every U.S. citizen is duty bound to protect?
The source of this top secret laptop-bomb leak that the Post published had to be someone in the intel community who was violating an oath that he had sworn to protect U.S. secrets, and committing a felony by leaking that secret.
Those who leaked this to hurt Trump, and those who published this in the belief it would hurt Trump, sees themselves as the "Resistance" -- like the French Resistance to Vichy in World War II.
And they seemingly see themselves as above the laws that bind the rest of us.
"Can Donald Trump Be Trusted With State Secrets?" asked the headline on the editorial in The New York Times.
One wonders: Are these people oblivious to their own past?
In 1971, The New York Times published a hoard of secret documents from the Kennedy-Johnson years on Vietnam. Editors spent months arranging them to convince the public it had been lied into a war that the Times itself had supported, but had turned against.
Purpose of publication: Damage and discredit the war effort, now that Richard Nixon was commander in chief. This was tantamount to treason in wartime.
When Nixon went to the Supreme Court to halt publication of the Pentagon Papers until we could review them to ensure that sources and methods were not being compromised, the White House was castigated for failing to understand the First Amendment.
And for colluding with the thieves that stole them, and for publishing the secret documents, the Times won a Pulitzer.
Forty years ago, the Post also won a Pulitzer -- for Watergate.
The indispensable source of its stories was FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt, who repeatedly violated his oath and broke the law by leaking the contents of confidential FBI interviews and grand jury testimony.
Felt, "Deep Throat," was a serial felon. He could have spent 10 years in a federal penitentiary had his identity been revealed. But to protect him from being prosecuted and sent to prison, and to protect themselves from the public knowing their scoops were handed to them by a corrupt FBI agent, the Post kept Felt's identity secret for 30 years. Yet, their motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness."
Which brings us to the point.
The adversary press asserts in its actions a right to collude with and shelter disloyal and dishonorable officials who violate our laws by leaking secrets that they are sworn to protect.
Why do these officials become criminals, and why do the mainstream media protect them?
Because this seedy bargain is the best way to advance their common interests.
The media get the stolen goods to damage Trump. Anti-Trump officials get their egos massaged, their agendas advanced and their identities protected.
This is the corrupt bargain the Beltway press has on offer.
For the media, bringing down Trump is also good for business. TV ratings of anti-Trump media are soaring. The "failing New York Times" has seen a surge in circulation. The Pulitzers are beckoning.
And bringing down a president is exhilarating. As Ben Bradlee reportedly said during the Iran-Contra scandal that was wounding President Reagan, "We haven't had this much fun since Watergate."
When Nixon was brought down, North Vietnam launched a spring offensive that overran the South, and led to concentration camps and mass executions of our allies, South Vietnamese boat people perishing by the thousands in the South China Sea, and a holocaust in Cambodia.
When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish an office inside the FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security leaks that are de facto felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation.
Then he should order that prosecutor to determine if any Trump associates, picked up by normal security surveillance, were unmasked, and had their names and conversations spread through the intel community, on the orders of Susan Rice and Barack liar-nObama, to seed the bureaucracy to sabotage the Trump presidency before it began.
{townhall.com} ~ Who is the real threat to the national security?
Is it President Trump who shared with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov the intelligence that ISIS was developing laptop bombs to put aboard airliners?
Or is it The Washington Post that ferreted out and published this code-word intelligence, and splashed the details on its front page, alerting the world, and ISIS, to what we knew.
President Trump has the authority to declassify security secrets. And in sharing that intel with the Russians, who have had airliners taken down by bombs, he was trying to restore a relationship.
On fighting Islamist terror, we and the Russians agree.
Five years ago, Russia alerted us that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had become a violent radical Islamist. That was a year and a half before Tsarnaev carried out the Boston Marathon bombing.
But upon what authority did The Washington Post reveal code-word intelligence secrets? Where in the Constitution or U.S. law did the Post get the right to reveal state secrets every U.S. citizen is duty bound to protect?
The source of this top secret laptop-bomb leak that the Post published had to be someone in the intel community who was violating an oath that he had sworn to protect U.S. secrets, and committing a felony by leaking that secret.
Those who leaked this to hurt Trump, and those who published this in the belief it would hurt Trump, sees themselves as the "Resistance" -- like the French Resistance to Vichy in World War II.
And they seemingly see themselves as above the laws that bind the rest of us.
"Can Donald Trump Be Trusted With State Secrets?" asked the headline on the editorial in The New York Times.
One wonders: Are these people oblivious to their own past?
In 1971, The New York Times published a hoard of secret documents from the Kennedy-Johnson years on Vietnam. Editors spent months arranging them to convince the public it had been lied into a war that the Times itself had supported, but had turned against.
Purpose of publication: Damage and discredit the war effort, now that Richard Nixon was commander in chief. This was tantamount to treason in wartime.
When Nixon went to the Supreme Court to halt publication of the Pentagon Papers until we could review them to ensure that sources and methods were not being compromised, the White House was castigated for failing to understand the First Amendment.
And for colluding with the thieves that stole them, and for publishing the secret documents, the Times won a Pulitzer.
Forty years ago, the Post also won a Pulitzer -- for Watergate.
The indispensable source of its stories was FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt, who repeatedly violated his oath and broke the law by leaking the contents of confidential FBI interviews and grand jury testimony.
Felt, "Deep Throat," was a serial felon. He could have spent 10 years in a federal penitentiary had his identity been revealed. But to protect him from being prosecuted and sent to prison, and to protect themselves from the public knowing their scoops were handed to them by a corrupt FBI agent, the Post kept Felt's identity secret for 30 years. Yet, their motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness."
Which brings us to the point.
The adversary press asserts in its actions a right to collude with and shelter disloyal and dishonorable officials who violate our laws by leaking secrets that they are sworn to protect.
Why do these officials become criminals, and why do the mainstream media protect them?
Because this seedy bargain is the best way to advance their common interests.
The media get the stolen goods to damage Trump. Anti-Trump officials get their egos massaged, their agendas advanced and their identities protected.
This is the corrupt bargain the Beltway press has on offer.
For the media, bringing down Trump is also good for business. TV ratings of anti-Trump media are soaring. The "failing New York Times" has seen a surge in circulation. The Pulitzers are beckoning.
And bringing down a president is exhilarating. As Ben Bradlee reportedly said during the Iran-Contra scandal that was wounding President Reagan, "We haven't had this much fun since Watergate."
When Nixon was brought down, North Vietnam launched a spring offensive that overran the South, and led to concentration camps and mass executions of our allies, South Vietnamese boat people perishing by the thousands in the South China Sea, and a holocaust in Cambodia.
When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish an office inside the FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security leaks that are de facto felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation.
Then he should order that prosecutor to determine if any Trump associates, picked up by normal security surveillance, were unmasked, and had their names and conversations spread through the intel community, on the orders of Susan Rice and Barack liar-nObama, to seed the bureaucracy to sabotage the Trump presidency before it began.
Comments