Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Resist: Post-Trump Victory, Dems Finally Flip a State Legislature Seat...to Republicans

By Guy Benson

If you're unfamiliar with the partisan landscape of state legislatures across the country in recent years, here's a quick primer: With precious few, deep blue exceptions, Republicans have dominated.

During the Obama era, the GOP gained hundreds upon hundreds of seats in state-level governing bodies; they currently control 68 of 99 chambers nationwide.

The popular backlash to Obamaism was swift, deep, and now complete: The Republican Party now rules DC, too -- even if they seem incapable of taking advantage of this rare opportunity at unified governance.

But now that Trump is president, the roles could well reverse.  

Much like the GOP in 2009, Democrats find themselves staggering about in the wilderness; leaderless, and with a base fanatically committed to maximum "resistance" against the new administration.

They've aired their intense opposition through the (largely sympathetic, if not outright allied) mainstream media, staged mass demonstrations, and leveraged every social media platform under the sun to fight Trump and the Republicans.

The political momentum, and the gravitational pull toward an ideological pendulum swing, appears to be on the Left's side.

And yet, here's what we relayed a few weeks ago regarding some early electoral outcomes that have occurred since Trump's November victory:

The Democrat resistance may be generating a lot of noise in Washington, D.C., but so far in 2017, it has shown little impact on elections in the states. Even with hefty financial investments and high profile Democrats lending star power to state-level candidates, Republicans won control of every district they previously held across multiple states that Democrats have won in the last three or more presidential elections, including as recently as yesterday in Connecticut.
Democrats sought to flip partisan control of four Republican-held seats in a quartet of blue state legislatures -- with liberal advocates showering national attention and money upon several of the races.

The result?  

Zero pick-ups. In spite of major intensity and financial gaps fueled by The Resistance, the GOP held serve in all four contests.

But now there's an update to this story.

A seat in Louisiana has finally flipped. From blue to red.

Via the Republican State Leadership Committee:

For months, Democrats have bragged about state-level, special election strength and victories, while conveniently glossing over one very important detail: they weren’t actually winning any new seats. But on Saturday, the seat count finally changed… and not in their direction. Republican John Stefanski this weekend flipped Louisiana House District 42 – a seat held by Democrats since at least 1972 – after Democrats failed to even file a candidate in the race. Additionally, Republicans retained House District 92 on Saturday with a win by Joe Stagni. So for those of you keeping score, Democrats in state legislatures – despite massive interest and spending – have still flipped zero seats and hold even less than they did at the beginning of 2017. So much for refocused and rebuilding. ICYMI earlier this month, RSLC Political Director Justin Richards released a 2017 special elections update memo noting that despite major investments and major party surrogates’ engagement, Democrats hadn’t actually netted any new seats in state legislative chambers.
The RSLC surveys the state of play since Trump's resistance-sparking win last fall:

- Republicans in January retained a seat in the Virginia House and Virginia Senate by very comfortable margins, despite big investments by Democrats led by Governor Terry McAuliffe.

- Republicans in February retained a Minnesota House seat which gave them their largest House majority ever post-presidential election, despite major Democrat Party surrogates campaigning for their candidate.

- Also in February, Republicans by 12 points retained a critical Senate seat in Connecticut to maintain a chamber tie first secured on Election Day 2016, despite Democrats investing heavily to flip the seat and win back an outright majority.
Now add a red state GOP gain to the roster, following a race in which Democrats couldn't even get a candidate on the ballot to replace their outgoing member.  

As I emphasized in my previous post, this is not cause for conservatives to adopt a posture of smugness or complacency.  

Yes, regaining the US Senate is going to be a very tough task for Democrats due to the nature of the 2018 map, but they will have a great many opportunities to make other significant gains at the state legislative, gubernatorial and federal level next year.  

Keep an eye on this upcoming special Congressional election in Georgia in a Trump-wary district, too. 

Overall, Republicans have won so much lately that it will be a target-rich environment for the 'out' party.  

And if President Trump's job approval rating is still suffering by next fall (absent mitigating factors), GOP losses could be substantial.  

But these very early campaign results prove is that the Democratic/media narrative about a resurgent Left is at least premature, given the choices voters have made in five states.

Monday, March 27, 2017

6 Questions Democrats Should Be Asking Themselves Right Now

By John Hawkins

It’s fine for Democrats to be upset that Donald Trump schlonged Hillary Clinton, but the reality is that they spent the entirety of the Obama years getting their brains beaten in.

When Obama first took office, they held the House and 60 seats in the Senate and controlled the majority of governorships and state legislatures.

Now, the GOP has a large majority in the House, 52 seats in the Senate, and the majority of state legislatures and governorships.

Democrats went from thinking they were on the verge of a permanent political ascendancy to the worst political bloodbath in American history.
Put another way, Democrats are the George Armstrong Custer of political parties, and yet that doesn’t seem to have inspired any soul searching at all.
So here are some questions Democrats should be asking themselves right now:
1) Hillary Clinton? Seriously?
Hillary had a potential FBI indictment hanging over her head even as Democrats nominated her.
She’s unlikable, not particularly accomplished for a presidential candidate, campaigned on a radically liberal agenda, has corruption issues, and her campaign pitch could be boiled down to “Vote For Me Because I’m A Woman.”
On top of that, she was already so widely despised that she turned out Republicans.
You could make a decent argument that she’s the single worst presidential candidate of all time, yet she won anyway.
Of course, you could make the argument that a radical socialist like Bernie Sanders would have been worse, but even if so, why do the Democrats have so few quality candidates?
Where are the blue chip candidates?
2) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The “One Size Of Liberalism Fits All” Party?
We’re in an age where people have almost infinite choice when it comes to TV, music, clothing, groceries, websites and just about everything else.
Yet, the standard Democratic position is that the federal government needs to be in charge of everything so San Francisco values can be forced on everyone.
Don’t like gay marriage in your state? Too bad.
Don’t want Obamacare? Too bad. You are going to get it – and LIKE IT.
Democrats are so proud that they believe in “choice” when it comes to abortion - even though the father and the baby have no choice.
So why not allow other people to live like they choose?
3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police?
Over the last few years, Democrats have turned into sour, anger puritans shaking their fingers at everyone who steps outside their extremely narrowly approved set of liberal values.
We’ve actually gotten to the point where Democrats can’t even tolerate OTHER PEOPLE listening to non-liberal viewpoints on campus.
Whatever happened to being open-minded?
Whatever happened to tolerating other viewpoints?
Don’t Democrats need to learn how to do that again?
4) Do Democrats Represent Anyone Other Than The Most Liberal Americans?
If you’re a man, Democrats accuse you of perpetuating rape culture.
If you’re white, they accuse you of being privileged.
If you’re a Christian, they accuse you of being as bad as radical Islamists.
If you’re a non-liberal woman, you’re constantly told that women who hold you in contempt and don’t represent your views speak for you.
If you’re moderate, for all intents and purposes, they tell you to shut your mouth and do as you’re told.
Democrats would rather offend a million Americans in flyover country than hack off a liberal college professor.
At some point, if you want to represent people, you have to at least make an attempt to address issues they care about in a way that they appreciate.
Democrats have abandoned this idea and have started explaining to Americans that they’re too stupid to know what’s good for them.
That’s not how you make friends and influence people.
5) Has The Democratic Party Gotten Too Extreme?
Democrats from the Clinton years would think today’s Democrats are nuts and Democrats from, say, 40 years ago would vote Republican before they’d vote for the radicalism that has been embraced by today’s Democrat Party.
Gay marriage, men in the women’s restrooms, detaching gender from genitalia, trigger warnings, safe spaces, cultural appropriation, white privilege, open borders – these are radical shifts for the Democrat Party that have happened in a relatively short period of time.
At what point do you start to wonder if your party has moved too far, too fast?
6) Can The Democratic Party Continue To Advocate For More Spending?
Democrats seem to start every discussion with the assumption that there’s an infinite amount of money for them to divvy out to liberal interest groups and for votes.
Meanwhile, we’re almost 20 trillion dollars in debt and adding more to that amount every year - and we are now reliant on nations like China and Saudi Arabia to keep loaning us money so we can pay Social Security and Medicare.
This is an unsustainable situation and, whether by choice or necessity, the amount of money the federal government spends must drop substantially in the next decade or two.
Can the Democrat Party continue to function without being able to give away taxpayer dollars?
One way or another, we’re going to find out.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

The Trump Agenda: Moving Forward For America

A Message From The Tump-Pence Team

On November 8th, the American People voted for historic change and serious action.

By delivering the House, the Senate, and the White House, the American people gave Washington clear instructions: It’s time to get busy, get to work, and to get the job done.

President Trump is keeping his promises and continues to Make America Great Again!

Read about the President’s week below.

The Movement Continues In Kentucky

President Trump held a rally in Louisville, KY on Monday. He made it clear that standing together as Americans, we are going to deliver amazing things for the citizens of Kentucky and the United States. We are going to take power back from the political class in Washington, and return that power to the American people. It’s happening, and it all started on November 8th.  

No One Knows America Like Truckers

No one knows America like truckers know America. All across America every day, they see every hill, valley, and pothole in our roads that have to be redone in every town and forest from border to border and ocean to ocean.

America depends on truck drivers. They work very hard for every citizen of our country. That’s why President Trump held a meeting with truckers this week to address the many issues facing their industry.  

Bipartisan Support For Supreme Court Nominee Judge Grosuch

Judge Neil Gorsuch began confirmation hearings at the United States Senate this week. President Trump has nominated the most qualified, principled, and strongest defender of the Constitution possible as his choice for Supreme Court Justice. It comes as no surprise that Judge Gorsuch is being lauded as a brilliant judge who rules based on the Constitution rather than his own opinions. 
You can support Judge Gorsuch by clicking here and signing the petition.  

Paying Back Our Veterans

President Trump held a listening session with Veteran Affairs Secretary David Shulkin and veterans. As Commander-in-Chief, President Trump will not accept sub-standard service for our great Veterans. Every member of our government must do their utmost to ensure our Veterans have the care that they earned. That's the way they’re going to be treated.  

Imagining A Better Future In Space

For almost six decades, NASA’s work has inspired millions of Americans to imagine distant worlds and a better future right here on Earth. President Trump signed Senate Bill 442 to reaffirm our Nation's commitment to NASA's core mission: human space exploration, space science, and technology. With this legislation, we support NASA’s scientists, engineers, astronauts and their pursuit of discovery.

We are one people. Whether we are black, brown or white, we all salute the same great American flag.

As long we remember these truths, we will not fail. No one can beat us. We are Americans, and the future belongs to us.

This is your moment. This is your time. And this, the United States of America, is your country again.

We're in this together and we can't thank you enough for your continued support.

Team Trump-Pence

P.S. ACT NOW: Pre-order our new Limited Edition Make America Great Hats by clicking here.

In Gorsuch Hearings, Democrats Blow It on Originalism

As the hearing for Judge Neil Gorsuch wrapped up on Thursday, one theme stood out strongest: Gorsuch is not even the main actor.  Rather, the starring role was shared by those in the Democratic Party, who, put simply, do not understand originalism – nor, quite possibly, even the Constitution.
It is not likely that the Democrats were looking to showcase their woeful ignorance of a judicial philosophy.  Then again, this is a party in deep trouble, though you wouldn't know that by asking its members.  There is perhaps no one who better illustrates this than Edward-Isaac Dovere in "Democrats in the Wilderness," written for Politico.
With all their failings, the Democrats are looking to play the political game – that is, they want to make Gorsuch, who was confirmed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by a unanimous voice vote, look bad at all costs.  This involved reminding him that he's not Judge Merrick Garland, as if Gorsuch didn't already know that and could do anything about it.  To his credit, Gorsuch thinks "the world of Merrick Garland" and he is "an outstanding judge."
Almost just as petty, Democrats jumped at the opportunity to ask Gorsuch about his views, as if being an originalist meant he would be against the LGBT community.  The clear winner with this technique was Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) – and fittingly so, considering his role as an entertainer.
Not only did Gorsuch not take the bait, including and especially from Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), but he showed off the fitting nominee he is: one who has a healthy grasp on how it is not so much his personal beliefs that matter, but his judicial philosophy that guides his decisions.  What Democrats did do well is demonstrate that they can't fathom having to separate the two.
On the first day, ranking member Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) lambasted the originalist view, admitting that her beef was "personal."  She finds such a "judicial philosophy" "really troubling."  She described how "it means in essence that judges and courts should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789."  To prove her point, Feinstein referenced enslaved African-Americans and women.
She claimed that this view would "ignore the intent of the Framers, that the Constitution would be a framework on which to build," and that "it severely limits the genius of what our Constitution upholds."
Feinstein's examples would prove the flaws of originalism if only she had not left out a glaring omission: the constitutional amendment process.  One could find perhaps no better originalist than the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia, as President Donald Trump likes to call him.
Scalia was a promoter of the constitutional amendment process, which has acknowledged and enshrined the rights of women and black Americans.
What is Feinstein's alternative?  "I firmly believe that the American Constitution is a living document, intended to evolve as our country evolves," she said.  One can only surmise that it is up to judges to decide not merely what the law says, but, if they don't like it, what the law ought to say.
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) could also not help showing off her gross misunderstanding.
Gorsuch not only sailed through such questioning, but cleared up for Klobuchar that he is "not looking to take us back to quill pens and horse and buggies."  She had asked:
So when the Constitution refers 30-some times to 'his' or 'he' when describing the president of the United States, you would see that as, 'Well back then they actually thought a woman could be president even through women couldn't vote?'
A Supreme Court nominee should not have to defend how he believes that women can be president.  In the end, it worked to Gorsuch's advantage, as it showcased his likability.  "Of course women can be president of the United States," he said.  That wasn't even the best part. "I'm a father of two daughters, and I hope one of them turns out to be president of the United States."
Being an originalist does not require an insistence that the Constitution is not open to change, but rather an insistence that changes be done through the proper process.
What it does mean is that judges do just that: they judge.  What they don't do is use their own political beliefs to change the law to fit their view of what the law should be.
It is not exaggeration to warn that doing so threatens the very framework of the separation of powers, as unelected judges insert themselves into roles designed exclusively for the legislative branch.
It is telling for Democrats to have exposed themselves in such a way.  It could spell doom for the Democratic Party and its future, at least with their influence on the judiciary.  There is another worse option, however, for generations to come, if decisions are made by activist judges who will interpret and evolve the Constitution for their own political and personal gains.  In other words, a Democrat's dream.
Rebecca Downs has had her writing published at several outlets, mostly pro-life. You can find her on Facebook.


Praise For Judge Gorsuch’s Performance At His Confirmation Hearing
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “Senate Democrats Have Scores Of Legitimate Political Fights In Front Of Them. Judge Gorsuch Is Not One. He Should Be Confirmed.” (Joe Scarborough, Twitter Feed, 3/21/17)

The Washington Post: “Gorsuch Presented Himself As The Picture Of A Cool, Calm, Self-Assured Justice.” “Gorsuch presented himself as the picture of a cool, calm, self-assured justice.” (Amber Phillips, “4 Takeaways From Neil Gorsuch’s Highly Politicized Confirmation Hearing,” The Washington Post, 3/21/17)

The Washington Examiner Headline: “Gorsuch Crushes Durbin’s Weak Line Of Questioning On Student Letter.” (Emily Jashinsky, “Gorsuch Crushes Durbin's Weak Line Of Questioning On Student Letter,” The Washington Examiner, 3/21/17)
CNBC’s John Harwood: “There Is No Chance Under The Sun That Democrats Defeat Gorsuch Nomination. He Makes Extremely Strong Case For Himself.”(John Harwood, Twitter Feed, 3/21/17)
CNN’s Gloria Berger: “Judge Gorsuch Is Qualified And Everybody Knows It.” (CNN’s “Newsroom,” 3/21/17)
Fox Business’ Janie Nitze:Gorsuch’s “Personality, His Kindness, His Wittiness, His Humor” Are All “Shining Through.” “And one thing I’ve been actually pleased about in watching the hearing is that the warrant of his personality, his kindness, his wittiness, his humor, all of it is shining through, and I think he has built a great persona on all sides of the aisle here.” (Fox Business Network’s “Closing Bell,” 3/21/17)
Fox News’ Laura Ingraham: “I Think He Comes Across As A Man Who's Very Poised, Very Learned.”(Fox News’ “Special Report With Bret Baier,” 3/21/17)
MSNBC's Chris Jansing: Gorsuch Delivered An “Impressively Disciplined Performance.” (MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” 3/21/17)
Law Professor Randy Barnett: “Gorsuch Made Effective Response To Dem Cherry-Picking His Record With Lots Of Other Cases That Went Other Way.”(Randy Barnett, Twitter Feed, 3/21/17)


Saturday, March 25, 2017

Did Obama Surveil Trump? Sure Looks That Way

 Investor's Business Daily

Domestic Spying: Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, says that the Obama administration surveilled Donald Trump's transition aides and possibly Trump himself following November's election. If true, it warrants a major investigation.

"I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions the intelligence community ... collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition," Nunes told reporters.
Nunes immediately came under intense criticism from congressional Democrats for his revelations. What's both hilarious and sad is that these are the very same Democrats who have been nearly silent as a series of illegal leaks from the intelligence bureaucracy have made their way into the mainstream media, in a transparent attempt by unnamed intelligence officials to damage Trump's presidency.
Nunes, speaking Wednesday and citing only "sources," was careful to note that the surveillance of Trump aides appeared to be both legal and "incidental" — that is, not part of a directed spying operation on Trump.
Of course, that appears to be literally true. But it's also irrelevant. Democrats and the media keep mentioning the word "incidental" as if it exonerates what now appears to be a domestic spying operation against Trump directed from the Obama White House.
"Incidental" doesn't mean unintentional. Take as an example the leaks of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's conversations in late December with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Those talks have been treated as sinister, with the Washington Post even suggesting that they were a violation of the Logan Act, a possible serious crime.
But U.S. intelligence gatherers could quite easily get an "incidental" trove of material on Flynn, simply by getting a surveillance warrant on someone they knew he was likely to talk to. Presto! The information on Flynn talking to the target becomes "incidental," rather than targeted. Still, the intent was clear.
The fact is, as Nunes revealed, this appears to be a pattern of surveillance put in place by the Obama administration and possibly officials in the FBI, CIA or National Security Agency to elude any appearance of a domestic spying operation on a political foe, which would be a serious crime.
Some of President Trump's calls with foreign leaders have likewise been leaked. By whom? For what purpose? This is clearly illegal behavior, and calls into question the reliability and loyalty of the entire intelligence community. Why are the Democrats not furious at this, as they would be if it were one of their own who was targeted?
Nunes was careful to note that the surveillance activities did not appear to be related to the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia in the last election. So the question remains: What were they doing?
We know that the investigation into Trump's campaign and Russia is real, since it was confirmed earlier this week by FBI Director James Comey himself. Comey, during his testimony, was clear and emphatic in saying President Trump's explosive tweets of two weeks ago accusing Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower had no basis in fact.
"I have no information that supports those tweets," Comey told the committee. Besides, Comey added, no president could order a wiretapping operation against a specific citizen. That takes a court order.
True enough. But again, wiretapping is a term that to the government means one thing: The gathering of information from a specific telephone. What about a warrant for surveillance of a third party in order to catch a party unnamed in the warrant?
Back when they thought it might destroy Trump, the New York Times, Britain's Guardian, the BBC and McClatchy News Service all reported on President Obama's expanded use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to investigate Trump's team.
This isn't far-fetched at all. As John Nolte of the Daily Wire has noted, "In order to spy on James Rosen of Fox News, Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder named him as a criminal co-conspirator and, quite incredibly, a flight risk. This gave the Obama administration 'legal' access not only to Rosen's emails but Rosen's parents' phone records."
And the BBC's Paul Wood added a chilling note, reporting that a FISA judge had approved surveillance of Trump in October, just three weeks before the election: "A lawyer — outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case — told me that three of Mr. Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. 'But it's clear this is about Trump,' he said."
Does anyone doubt, having done it before, that the Obama administration wouldn't do it again? And did the FBI's Comey, playing cute with his wording around the term "wiretapping," possibly commit perjury in his testimony to Congress?
Regardless, it warrants a deep investigation. Who in the federal government was collecting information on Trump's aides and why? Was it for political reasons? Or part of a plan to undercut his presidency from the very beginning? Why haven't the leaks been stopped?
No one right now has all the answers. But the pattern suggests a surveillance program that would be a far more serious breach of the law than Watergate ever was. It's time the American people found out.

The Wall Street Journal

Did Obama Abuse Raw Intelligence?
I couldn’t have seen those transcripts when I led the House intel committee.

By Peter Hoekstra

It was remarkable when Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, revealed Wednesday that Trump campaign officials were caught up in the inadvertent collection of intelligence. Read between the lines with a clear understanding of the intelligence community, and it’s positively astonishing.
Starting with the premise of Mr. Nunes’s announcement, there’s evidence to show that communications involving people connected with the Trump transition were collected by America’s intelligence apparatus. We don’t know the particulars, but it could include conversations between Trump transition staff and foreign officials whose conversations were subject to intelligence monitoring.
Things begin to get a little frightening when we learn that this inadvertent collection of Trump staff conversations was followed up with transcriptions of those conversations and the disclosure (or unmasking) of the persons involved in the conversation. These transcripts would be considered raw intelligence reports.
When I was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I was routinely involved in briefings as a member of the “Gang of Eight”—both parties’ leaders in the House and Senate and on the intelligence committees. I cannot recall how many times I asked to see raw intelligence reporting and was refused because that stuff is just not made available to policy makers.

But according to Mr. Nunes, such information made its way to the Obama White House before Inauguration Day. Few if any people working in the White House would ever need to see raw intelligence. Like intelligence committee members, they are typically consumers of intelligence products, not raw intelligence.
The raw transcripts of masked persons—or unmasked persons, or U.S. persons who can be easily identified—making their way to the White House is very likely unprecedented. One can only imagine who, at that point, might be reading these reports. Valerie Jarrett? Susan Rice? Ben Rhodes? The president himself? We don’t know, and the people who do aren’t talking at the moment.
Then we have the testimony earlier this week from FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers. Mr. Comey said there was no basis to support the tweet from President Trump that his “wires” had been tapped by Barack Obama. What he didn’t say—and wasn’t asked—was whether information was collected on Trump staff by other means. Mr. Trump was a little inarticulate in the context of Twitter’s 140-character limit, but it seems he got the general picture right.
Then there’s Mr. Comey’s testimony that the FBI had been investigating Trump staff for eight months. It almost certainly included surveillance; an investigation without surveillance would approach farcical.
Adm. Rogers told the House Intelligence Committee that there are strict controls in place for masking and unmasking the identities of people caught up in the inadvertent collection of information and the distribution of this kind of material. It now appears he either misled the committee or doesn’t know what’s happening inside his own agency. If Mr. Nunes is right, the rules either weren’t followed or were much less stringent than Adm. Rogers let on.
Last, and rather damningly, I believe that Mr. Comey and Adm. Rogers would have to have known that raw transcripts of captured conversations that included members of the Trump team were at the White House. It is inconceivable that people in those positions of power would not know. While this may not be criminal, it is at least a cause for them to be fired.
My greatest concern—the one that keeps me awake at night—is that the awesome powers of our intelligence community might have been corrupted for political purposes. While we’re not witnessing broad, Stasi-style surveillance of citizens, it’s clear there have been serious errors of judgment and action among our otherwise professional intelligence community. This is truly scary. We have to learn the entire truth before anyone, in or out of Congress, can again have confidence in our intelligence community.

Mr. Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, 2004-07.

Trump signals new hope for ObamaCare overall, says 'Do not worry!'

President Trump hinted Saturday that overhauling ObamaCare is still alive, perhaps through a bipartisan deal, following the effort’s dramatic and seemingly terminal failure a day earlier.
“ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE,” Trump tweeted. “Do not worry!”
Trump tweet after House Speaker Paul Ryan on Friday cancelled the final vote for the ObamaCare replacement bill, upon concluding he didn’t have enough votes despite the chamber’s GOP majority.
“We’re going to be living with ObamaCare for the foreseeable future,” the Wisconsin Republican said afterward, making clear that neither he nor President Trump intend to introduce new legislation.
Meanwhile, Trump appeared to already be turning his attention to tax reform and returning to his plan to allow ObamaCare to continue -- with the expectation that the 2010 health care law would implode amid increasing costs and few options for Americans.
Still, his tweet Saturday suggested a potentially willingness to work on a bipartisan plan on overhauling ObamaCare -- albeit a scenario in which Democrats come to the GOP-controlled Congress to work together on improvement.

ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE. Do not worry!

The Republican divided that doomed the party’s ObamaCare replacement bill appears as equally wide in the aftermath, with leaders in disagreement about the next step.
Ohio Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan on Saturday seemed open to such discussions, acknowledging that ObamaCare indeed has problems, including too few tax credits for poor Americans to help pay for the insurance.
“ObamaCare is not perfect. We need to fix things” he said on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.” “This is all fixable if we sit down as reasonable people.”
Louisiana GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy told Fox News' "America's News Headquarters" on Saturday that he agrees with Trump's tweet, suggesting a bipartisan effort.

Friday, March 24, 2017

Welcome to London – Run By A Muslim And Terrorized By Islamic Radicals

London Terrorist Attack Update

KILLER NAMED: London attacker identified as Khalid Masood

UK Parliament attacker was Khalid Masood, a 52-year-old British man with criminal convictions, police announce.

After ISIS claimed responsibility, the U.K.’s top terror officer said Friday that the country made two more “significant” arrests in the investigation into this week’s London terror attack that killed four. Country officials said two officers remain in critical condition and are hospitalized.

We can say we’re not afraid, light candles and make hearts of our hands but the truth is that we can’t go on like this, says KATIE HOPKINS
Welcome to London
By Katie Hopkins, The Daily Mail

PHOTO: People make hearts with their hands during a ceremony in Belgium to commemorate the first anniversary of the bomb attacks in Brussels

They stood in the centre of Brussels. Row on row. 

Hands held high, making hearts to the heavens. Showing the slaughtered they were not forgotten. Reminding themselves they were here with love. Looking to show humanity wins. That love conquers all.
They lay in the centre of London, face down where they fell. Stabbed by a knife, rammed with a car, flung, broken, into the Thames, life bleeding out on the curb.
And the news came thick and fast.
PHOTO: An injured woman is assisted after a man drove a 4x4 into pedestrians along Westminster Bridge on Wednesday afternoon

A car rammed deliberately into pedestrians on the bridge. Ten innocents down.
A police officer stabbed at the House of Commons. Confirmed dead.

Another woman now, dead at the scene.
Shots fired. An Asian man rushed to hospital.
A woman, plucked from the water.
And I grew colder. And more tiny.
No anger for me this time. No rage like I’ve felt before. No desperate urge to get out there and scream at the idiots who refused to see this coming.
Not even a nod for the glib idiots who say this will not defeat us, that we will never be broken, that cowardice and terror will not get the better of Britain.
Because, as loyal as I am, as patriotic as I am, as much as my whole younger life was about joining the British military and fighting for my country — I fear we are broken.
Not because of this ghoulish spectacle outside our own Parliament. Not because of the lives rammed apart on the pavement, even as they thought about what was for tea. Or what train home they might make.
PHOTO: Bystanders stop to give people mouth to mouth after the driver mowed them down. Katie Hopkins says we are now a broken London
But because this is us now.

This is our country now.

This is what we have become.

To this, we have been reduced.

Because all the while those forgiving fools in Brussels stood with their stupid hands raised in hearts to the sky, another mischief was in the making. More death was in the pipeline.

As the last life-blood of a police officer ran out across the cobbles, the attacker was being stretchered away in an attempt to save his life.

London is a city so desperate to be seen as tolerant, no news of the injured was released. No clue about who was safe or not.

Liberals convince themselves multiculturalism works because we all die together, too.

An entire city of monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Blind. Deaf. And dumb.

PHOTO: Members of the civil protection outside the damaged front of Brussels Airport, in Zaventem, a year ago today. The attacks left dozens dead and hundreds injured

Immersed in a seething pit of hatred, hidden in pockets of communities plagued by old animosities and ancient strife.
These people may have left their lands. But they have brought every tension, every conflict, every bit of fight here with them.
The Afghans hate the Somalias who loathe the Eritreans. As it was before, it is now. London is a city of ghettos behind a thin veneer of civility kept polished by a Muslim mayor whose greatest validation is his father's old job.
Son-of-a-bus-driver Sadiq.
I see him now, penning a missive about how London is a beautiful and tolerant city, how we are united by shared values and understanding, and how we will not be cowed by terror.
Sure enough, there he was, saying exactly that, just now. Fool.
A police officer is led away from the scene after she tries to revive her colleague who was stabbed in the attack on Wednesday afternoon

Even as mothers text to check their children are safe. Including my own, worrying about me as I sit overlooking the scene, feeling fearful of this place where monsters lurk and steal lives away in an instant. For nothing.
I would ask Sadiq to stop talking. Empty words. Meanwhile, banning pictures of women in bikinis on the Underground. How does that help?
Please, no hashtag, no vigil, no tea lights. I am begging you not to light up Parliament in the colours of the Union.
Because we are not united. We are wrenched asunder.
The patriots of the rest of England versus the liberals in this city.
The endless tolerance to those who harm us, (while the Home Office tries to shift the focus of public fear to white terror) — versus the millions like me who face the truth, with worried families and hopeless hearts, who feel the country sinking.
We are taken under the cold water by this heavy foot in the south, a city of lead, so desperately wedded to the multicultural illusion that it can only fight those who love the country the most, blame those who are most proud to be British, and shout racist at the 52%.
Photo: Prime Minister Theresa May speaks outside 10 Downing St after the attacks. Katie Hopkins says it is time to admit that multiculturalism has not worked
This place is just like Sweden. Terrified of admitting the truth about the threat we face, about the horrors committed by the migrants we failed to deter — because to admit that we are sinking, and fast, would be to admit that everything the liberals believe is wrong.
That multiculturalism has not worked. That it is one big fat failure and one big fat lie.
President Erdogan of Turkey said there is a war being waged between the crescent and the cross. But he is wrong. Because the cross is not strong. We are down on bended knee, a doormat to be trodden on, a joke only funny to those that wish us harm.
The war is between London and the rest of the country. Between the liberals and the right-minded. Between those who think it is more important to tip-toe around the cultures of those who choose to join us, rather than defend our own culture.
Photo: Katie Hopkins says these incidents are no longer unusual, but commonplace
How many more times?
And how many more attacks must pass before we acknowledge these are no longer the acts of ‘extremists’? That there is no safe badge with which to hold these people at arm’s length, in the way the liberals casually use the term 'far-right' for anyone who has National pride.
These events are no longer extreme. They are commonplace. Every day occurrences.
These people are no longer extremists. They are simply more devout. More true to their beliefs. Beliefs which will be supported endlessly across our state broadcaster for the next few months until we buy into the narrative that one religion is not to blame.
That in fact we should blame Brexit supporters. For believing in a Britain. As it was before.
Anything but the truth.
This is why there is no anger from me this time, no rage. No nod for those who pretend we will not be cowed, even as they rush home to text their mum they are safe. No surprise that the city of which I was so proud is now punctured by fear, and demarcated even more formally by places we cannot tread; there were always parts in which a white woman could not safely walk.
Photo: Sadiq Khan should 'stop talking' according to Katie Hopkins, who says his words are empty as we are 'wrenched asunder'
Now I feel only sadness, overwhelming sadness.
I will walk over the river tonight and look to the Thames, to the Union flag lowered at half mast, and the Parliament below, and I will wonder, just how much longer we can go on like this.