TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Americans Reject Bill for Climate 'Mitigation'
Jordan Candler
.
Bloomberg Analysis: Poorer Families
Lose Under commie-Sanders Plan
By David Rutz
{ freebeacon.com } ~ Most Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance and poorer families on Medicaid will come out on the losing end... of Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders's (I., Vt.) Medicare for All proposal. That's according to a Bloomberg analysis of commie-Sanders's universal health care plan, which he admits will increase middle class taxes but claims will save money for Americans overall because of reduced health insurance costs. "People who have health care under Medicare for All will have no premiums, no deductibles, no co-payments, no out-of-pocket expenses," commie-Sanders said at last week's Democratic debate. "Yes, they will pay more in taxes, but less in health care for what they get." However, the report finds that for many of the roughly 181 million Americans who get health insurance through their employer, they would wind up paying more overall if their taxes went up $10,000: Many of the 181 million taxpayers with employer-sponsored coverage are likely to see their taxes go higher than their current health care spending, because about 56% of their medical costs are covered by their company, according to the Milliman Medical Index, which tracks annual health care spending. For example, a person making $50,000 with employer-sponsored coverage spends about $5,250 annually on health care, meaning that under commie-Sanders's plan, her or his taxes would be nearly double the person’s current health care costs. If that person bought her or his own insurance, it would cost about $10,000, equalizing the $10,000 tax increase. It's also tough on people who use Medicaid, the government health insurance program for poorer Americans. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a family of four earning $30,000 spends roughly $1,200 a year on health care costs. With commie-Sanders's plan, their new tax burden would likely far outpace any savings on health payments... https://freebeacon.com/issues/most-americans-with-employer-sponsored-health-care-lose-under-sanders-plan/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=d1b2a36f88-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_03_19_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-d1b2a36f88-45611665 .
Oleg Deripaska Confirms He Was Employing
Chris Steele in 2016, While Dossier
Was Being Assembled…sk
by sundance
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ A new John Solomon article today, based on an interview with Russian Billionaire Oleg Deripaska, is essentially confirming a May 2018 article where it was presumed that Oleg had hired Christopher Steele... at the same time Steele was working with Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS to write the Trump dossier. Here’s the interview: The report on the FBI contacting Oleg Deripaska in September 2016 for help to structure a narrative of Russian involvement in the Trump Campaign via Paul Manafort has some ramifications.♦In 2009 the FBI, then headed by Robert Mueller, requested the assistance of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska in an operation to retrieve former FBI officer and CIA resource Robert Levinson who was captured in Iran two years earlier. The agent assigned to engage Deripaska was Andrew McCabe; the primary FBI need was financing and operational support. Deripaska spent around $25 million and would have succeeded except the U.S. State Department, then headed by scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton, backed out. ♦In September of 2016 Andrew McCabe is now Deputy Director of the FBI, when two FBI agents approached Deripaska in New York – again asking for his help.This time the FBI request was for Deripaska to outline Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort as a tool of the Kremlin. Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska sued Manafort, alleging he stole money. However, according to the 2018 article, despite Deripaska’s disposition toward Manafort he viewed the request as absurd. He laughed the FBI away, telling them: “You are trying to create something out of nothing.”....
Pentagon: S. China Sea Missile Test
Violated Xi Militarization Pledge
By Bill Gertz
{ freebeacon.com } ~ China's military conducted a flight test of an anti-ship ballistic missile in the contentious South China Sea last weekend... in violation of a pledge four years ago by President Xi Jinping not to militarize the waterway. "Of course the Pentagon was aware of the Chinese missile launch from the man-made structures in the South China Sea near the Spratly Islands," Lt. Col. Dave Eastburn, a Pentagon spokesman, told the Washington Free Beacon. "What's truly disturbing about this act is that it's in direct contradiction to President Xi's statement in the Rose Garden in 2015 when he pledged to the U.S., the Asia-Pacific region, and the world, that he would not militarize those man-made outposts," Eastburn stated, referring to Chinese leader Xi Jinping. China's behavior in conducting the provocative missile test is contrary to Beijing's claim to want to bring peace to the region, he added. "And obviously actions like this are coercive acts meant to intimidate other South China Sea claimants," Eastburn said. Defense officials said the flight test took place over the weekend and the Chinese could conduct additional tests since the announced period of sea and air closures in the region is in effect until Wednesday. It was the first time the U.S. government has confirmed China's test of a new high-technology maneuvering anti-ship ballistic missile. The United States has deployed warships to the South China Sea as part of efforts to challenge Beijing's claims to own 90 percent of the 1.3 million-square-mile sea that is used for some $3 trillion in annual trade....
France: The Real Emmanuel Macron
by Guy Millière.
New Ad Urges Trump to Act Against
Slaughter of Innocents in Syria
By Adam Kredo
{ freebeacon.com } ~ A new advertisement currently running on cable news channels urges President Donald Trump to take concrete action to stop Russia and Iran from helping Syrian president Bashar al-Assad... slaughter scores of innocent civilians in the war-torn city of Idlib. Activists aligned with the Americans for a Free Syria organization have purchased ad time on Fox News, Trump’s preferred news network, in a bid to convince the White House to take a stand against the ongoing violence in Syria that is being carried out by Iran and Russia on Assad’s behalf. While Trump took a stand last September to help stem the growing violence in Idlib, Assad’s allies have again begun to step up their military action against the city’s civilians. Russia has already begun to launch airstrikes on hospitals, schools, and other civilian strongholds, prompting activists to plead for Trump’s intervention. The one-minute advertisement urges Trump to make good on his promises from last September to protect Syria’s civilians from slaughter by Assad's Russian and Iranian proxies. "You can do it again," states the ad, which was paid for by AFS Education and the Syrian American Council. "Today Idlib is again under attack. Thousands could die. Millions could become refugees. Mr. President, don’t let it happen. Save Idlib. Stop Assad. "With the violence continuing to rage, activist organizations are turning to Trump to make a difference. "Last September, President Trump took a stand to stop an offensive by Assad, Russia, and Iran against millions of civilians trapped in Idlib Province," Erica Hanichak, government relations director at Americans for a Free Syria, told the Free Beacon. "Unfortunately, the so-called ceasefire between Russia and Turkey isn't worth the paper it’s printed on."....
.
Americans Reject Bill for Climate 'Mitigation'
Jordan Candler: Climate anxiety has apparently reached such a critical juncture for some people that there exists a climate guide, courtesy of the American Psychological Association/ecoAmerica, to ameliorate the panic. Reuters hits on this concern in a new report by claiming, “Nearly 70 percent of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, want the United States to take ‘aggressive’ action to combat climate change.”
There’s just one problem: “Only a third would support an extra tax of $100 a year to help, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday.” In other words, most people oppose scraping together less than $10 a month — which is comparable to many subscription services including television streaming — for an issue that evidently creates near-universal trepidation.
And who’s to blame them? Yet there’s plenty of irony in this, especially when presidential candidates like Sen. lowlife-Kamala Harris claim, as she did during Thursday night’s debate: “What is the greatest national security threat to the United States? It’s Donald Trump. And I’m gonna tell you why. Because I agree: Climate change represents an existential threat. [Trump] denies the science.”
If Trump denies the science, then Democrats deny the math. Even if we assume that global warming is man-made — and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest it’s far more complex than that — it’s plainly evident that, economically speaking, there is a huge lack of decisive concern among voters. Several Democrat lawmakers envision climate-mitigation programs that add up to trillions upon trillions of dollars. In case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. can’t exactly afford that. According to the Reuters poll, most Americans can’t either — or they simply don’t want to waste their hard-earned money.
Of course, the reality is that the average Joe may claim to have concerns about the climate, but when push comes to shove, even they understand the situation isn’t as dire as alarmism and the accompanying poll aganda make it out to be. Democrats may get around this by assuring their constituents that it’s the obligation of “the wealthy” and Big Oil to pony up. But voters and consumers need to understand that those costs, one way or another, eventually circle back to them.
And let’s not lose sight of the biggest problem of all: There is absolutely no guarantee that these “green” programs will actually benefit the climate. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proved that there are ulterior motives at work with the Green New Deal, the impact of which, by the way, “would be barely distinguishable from zero,” according to the American Enterprise Institute. Which just goes to show that talk is cheap. If only politicians were as hesitant as their constituents are to spend $100 on a contentious issue. ~The Patriot Post
Comments