Does this answer your question about health care…???

…Does this answer your question about health care…???

Ryan, McConnell: Protecting Americans’ health insurance isn’t a priority

How Will Trump Change Nutrition Assistance Programs?  ….s.e. smith, Care2: As the government transitions, many advocates are concerned about the future of benefits like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — formerly known as "food stamps" — under a Republican-dominated Congress and White House. ..Read the Article

And precisely how does such a change benefit you and me ….???

…And precisely how does such a change benefit you and me ….???

Gun silencers are hard to buy. Donald Trump Jr. and silencer makers want to change that

 Michael S. Rosenwald January 9 at 3:50 PM  …The federal government has strictly limited the sale of firearm silencers for as long as James Bond and big-screen gangsters have used them to discreetly shoot enemies between the eyes.

Now the gun industry, which for decades has complained about the restrictions, is pursuing new legislation to make silencers easier to buy, and a key backer is Donald Trump Jr., an avid hunter and the oldest son of the ­president-elect, who campaigned as a friend of the gun industry.

The legislation stalled in Congress last year. But with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate and the elder Trump moving into the White House, gun rights advocates are excited about its prospects this year.

They hope to position the bill the same way this time — not as a Second Amendment issue, but as a public-health effort to safeguard the eardrums of the nation’s 55 million gun owners. They even named it the Hearing Protection Act. It would end treating silencers as the same category as machine guns and grenades, thus eliminating a $200 tax and a nine-month approval process.

“It’s about safety,” Trump Jr. explained in a September video interview with the founder of SilencerCo, a Utah silencer manufacturer. “It’s a health issue, frankly.”

Violence prevention advocates are outraged that the industry is trying to ease silencer restrictions by linking the issue to the eardrums of gun owners. They argue the legislation will make it easier for criminals and potential mass shooters to obtain devices to conceal attacks.

“They want the general public to think it’s about hearing aids or something,” said Kristen Rand, the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center. “It’s both a silly and smart way to do it, I guess. But when the general public finds out what’s really happening, there will be outrage.”

The silencer industry and gun rights groups say critics are vastly overstating the dangers, arguing that Hollywood has created an unrealistic image of silencers, which they prefer to call “suppressors.” They cite studies showing that silencers reduce the decibel level of a gunshot from a dangerous 165 to about 135 — the sound of a jackhammer — and that they are rarely used in crimes.

But gun-control activists say silencers are getting quieter, particularly in combination with subsonic ammunition, which is less lethal but still damaging. They point to videos on YouTube in which silencers make high-
powered rifles have “no more sound than a pellet gun,” according to 
one demonstrator showing off a silenced semiautomatic ­.22LR.

Democrats watched defeat seized from the jaws of victory when we allowed DNC

…Buy the following assessment if you choose … for me … we … Democrats watched defeat seized from the jaws of victory when we allowed DNC in chicken-shit fashion pandered to Hillary and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and cut the rug out from under Bernie Sanders…

…Until then “WE” were precisely the CAHNGE America wanted…


What Went Wrong with the Democratic Party? Three Big Failures That Led to the Current Debacle

There’s hope! But unless the Democrats can learn from the mistakes of the recent past, they don’t have a future.

By Sean McElwee / Salon  …. To an extent that is rarely true of an opposition party, Democrats can claim a mandate of resistance. Donald Trump lost the popular vote by a large margin, he’s incredibly unpopular and the Republicans have broken norms around using any tools available to gum up the opposition party’s agenda. In a welcome development, Democrats have largely avoided their classic debate about whether they should throw women or people of color under the bus in order to remain electorally competitive (though some pieces in this genre have slipped through).

But while “resistance” is a welcome posture for Democrats, it’s one that very few have clearly defined. Most autopsies have focused on Hillary Clinton’s campaign failures and messaging, but these are ancillary to the more structural failures of the Democratic Party over the last few years and offer only limited help to understand what’s coming next. Next week, I’ll discuss some principles for Democrats going into the future. But before Democrats can go forward, it’s worth understanding what’s been going wrong.

Mistake 1: Focusing on Perception, Not Power  ….Throughout Barack Obama’s time in office, Democrats have proved incapable of fighting back against Republican subterfuge because of their commitment to “respectability politics.” For example, James O’Keefe released a selectively edited video which he claimed showed that ACORN (a nonprofit organization that organized, mobilized and advocated for low-income communities) had advised him on how to buy a house and use it as a brothel. Rather than rallying in defense of ACORN, “an overwhelming majority of Democrats” voted with Republicans to cut off funding for an organization that had been “instrumental” in campaigns for living-wage ordinances, increasing the minimum wage and ending predatory lending.

Though the Obama administration was aware of the CIA’s assessment that Russia was trying to influence the 2016 election, it stepped cautiously around the issue, hoping to avoid the impression of using his presidency for partisan leverage. The FBI did not show the same restraint, and instead James Comey wrote his famous letter to the House Judiciary Committee that likely cost Clinton the election. Ironically, it was Obama’s commitment to keeping Republicans around in high-level positions (Comey is a Republican) that cost his party’s nominee the presidency. It is a nod at bipartisanship that will not be reciprocated by his successor.

When Republicans assume office, their first actions are to restrict democracy by limiting voting access, crush Democratic organizing with right-to-work laws and reward their donors with massive tax cuts. Yet when Democrats gain power they prefer to do the opposite, governing as pragmatic centrists. They rarely embrace a policy agenda that could build long-term power. Further, they have consistently believed that concessions to conservatives in policy design (markets) and frameworks (deficit neutrality) would reap benefits that never materialized. Democrats have been slow to defend their own interests because of their commitment to respectability politics. Finally, they have consistently overestimated the importance of norms and Republicans’ desire to respect them. Democrats have consistently invested political capital in protecting liberal norms, while Republicans have not, creating inequities in power.

Mistake 2: Unrequited Bipartisanship  Obama began his career singing the praises of bipartisanship. During his 2004 Democratic convention speech Obama famously declared:

The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states: red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and, yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states.

The failure of Democrats to realize how deep the Republican commitment to opposing their agenda runs has led to strategic errors. Take the earliest battles of Obama’s presidency, when he extended a hand to House Speaker John Boehner, only to have Boehner leave the table at the last minute. Or granting concessions (more than $1 trillion in spending cuts, with no tax increases) to the Republicans during the high-stakes debt ceiling negotiations in 2011, which only emboldened Republicans to pursue the tactic again in 2013. As the Onion perfectly satirized, “Obama: Debt Ceiling Deal Required Tough Concessions by Both Democrats and Democrats Alike.”In a Health Affairs article, Helen Halpin (who advised the Obama administration on the development of the Affordable Care Act) and Peter Harbage note that Sen. Max Baucus spent “months” trying to forge a bipartisan bill, sapping precious time that Democrats simply didn’t have.

This flows from the Democratic desire for bipartisan policy, but also from a technocratic disposition. Many liberal commentators are holding up Trump’s support among beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act to claim that the idea that policies would become entrenched is fundamentally wrong. In fact, it’s right — the problem is that ACA was not properly designed to mobilize political support for it. The administration failed to use the exchanges to register voters (as they were required to by the National Voter Registration Act). Where the Medicaid expansion passed, it did indeed mobilize turnout.

Research is further establishing the feedback loop between progressive policy and Democratic vote share, not debunking it. The fallacy lies in believing that programs will simply mobilize people by dint of their existence. In reality, of course, most Americans aren’t schooled in policy. Institutions like unions and community organizations (like ACORN) traditionally mobilize these beneficiaries. Social Security privatization didn’t work because groups like the AARP have cropped up to defend these benefits.

Mistake 3: Exclusive Focus on Presidential Power  It is widely understood that the party controlling the presidency will lose ground elsewhere. However, there is ample evidence that Democrats suffered more losses than were inevitable. For instance, in 2010, even the most pessimistic models dramatically underestimated the magnitude of Democratic losses in the midterm elections. Right now, Republicans control 23 seats in “split-ticket” congressional districts (that is, districts where voters supported one party’s presidential candidate, but elected a House member from the other party), compared with 12 for Democrats. Democrats control more split-ticket seats in the Senate, but that’s because Senate terms are six years long. In the 2016 election, there were no split-ticket votes and nearly all of the GOP’s Senate candidates performed better than Trump. The Democratic Party has let itself atrophy down-ballot at a stunning rate. Kathleen Ronaye reports:

Under [former party chair Howard] Dean, the national party installed and paid several staff members in each state. But that program ended after Obama’s election. State parties began to receive monthly payments of anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000, an amount that varies depending on the year. At some point, the parties have received no money at all.

That, in turn, has hampered the party’s ability to run viable candidates. In The Surge, Rhodes Cook writes:

In Alabama, for the first time in the party’s history, Democrats did not run a Senate candidate at all in 2014. In Tennessee, Democratic voters nominated a political unknown for governor who benefitted from a famous cartoon name (Charlie Brown) and a top line on the primary ballot … In Idaho, William Bryk drew 30 percent of the Democratic primary vote for Senate, even though he lived in New York. And in Nevada, the field of Democratic gubernatorial candidates was apparently so weak that a plurality of the party’s primary voters cast their ballots for a line labeled “None of these candidates.”

It’s not just one cycle. There was the trucker with no political experience who ran for governor of Mississippi in 2015, or the unemployed army vet facing obscenity charges for showing pornography to a college student who ran against Nikki Haley in South Carolina in 2010. In 2016 Jeff Stein documented some of the more egregious Democratic recruiting failures in potentially competitive House seats. Candidates included Frederick Lavergne, whose website was “filled with amazingly bizarre rants in Latin” and “a little-known county commissioner who has barely raised any money” (with a broken website). In one Texas district that Hillary Clinton carried, Democrats failed to even put forward a candidate. In a Virginia district that went narrowly for Trump, Democrats didn’t have a primary because only one candidate filed, a woman who “has run for the Newport News City Council four times and has lost each time; most recently in 2010 when she finished in fourth place, out of four candidates.”

As Roll Call reported last year, “More than a year from Election Day, Democrats are without top-tier recruits in five of the 11 races rated Tossups by the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report /Roll Call.” Democrats may claim these races are “unwinnable,” but Republicans have recently won gubernatorial elections in deep blue states like Vermont, Maryland and Massachusetts. Ironically, Larry Hogan, the Republican governor of Maryland, a state Hillary Clinton won by 26 points, is now considered by some Democrats to be “unbeatable.”

As the table below shows, Republicans have been far more successful at winning governorships in blue territory than Democrats have been at winning seats in red territory. (Partisan Voting Index, or PVI, is a measure of how much a state leans toward the Republican or Democratic Party.)

This is only for the federal House and Senate, along with gubernatorial elections. We’re not even talking about state legislature races. Given these failures, it may make sense for Democrats to spend more time recruiting candidates and less time encouraging qualified candidates not to run in order to“clear the field” for the establishment favorite.

In a recent piece, Andrew Prokop noted that the current Democratic situation looks much like the one Republicans faced in 2008. Yet on second consideration, this is deeply troubling. For one, Republicans were coming off a historically unpopular president (Bush had a 24 percent approval rating) while Obama has an approval rating of 58 percent. In addition, Republicans had just presided over the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, while Democrats are running on an economy with sturdy income growth and an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent. Finally, while Republicans were looking at a favorable electoral map in the 2010 midterms, Democrats are looking at an abysmal map in 2018. Their best chance to pick up Senate seats was squandered in 2016, when they were hoping to gain six to eight seats and instead picked up only two.

Conclusion  …These mistakes are more obvious in retrospect and many choices, at the time, seemed reasonable. The party in power often struggles down-ballot, and Democrats typically perform worse in low-turnout non-presidential elections. Furthermore, it’s difficult to recruit strong candidates when they don’t think they can win. But these defeats were not inevitable, and Democrats have shown only some signs they understand the depths of their plight.

Democrats will not inevitably bounce back. Republicans have used their power to suppress votes, crush unions, redraw favorable districts, open the floodgates of money and deter organizing. The Republican advantage in statehouses will feed high-quality candidates into competitive races. They are better funded, and though Democrats won’t happily admit it, better organized. The goal of understanding these failures is not simply to relitigate old battles, but to understand how politics have evolved. The old paradigms that have driven Democratic politics for decades matter less than they once did.


you are the “big-dog” and you get to make the rules

…When you are the leader of the political party in power … you are the “big-dog” and you get to make the rules…

…Get real … “WE” voted for CHANGE “WE” did not ask any questions…???


Mitch McConnell ignoring cabinet confirmation procedure he demanded in 2009

Letter shows he demanded full ‘financial disclosures’ before hearings.

The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate plans to rush forward this week with confirmation hearings for many of Donald Trump’s nominees for cabinet and other key executive positions. Though many of the picks have not yet completed the customarily required ethics clearances and background checks, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has shown no willingness to delay.

“They’ve made pretty clear they intend to slow down and resist and that doesn’t provide a lot of incentive or demonstrate good faith to negotiate changes. So I think we’re going to just be plowing ahead,” his deputy, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) told Politico.

But back in 2009, McConnell took the exact opposite view. A letter to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), posted on Twitter by Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington co-founder and former Obama administration ethics adviser Norm Eisen on Sunday, shows he demanded that “financial disclosures must be complete” before any confirmation hearings be scheduled.

In his letter, McConnell wrote that his party’s duty to “conduct the appropriate review” of presidential nominations, “consistent with the long standing and best practices of committees, regardless of which party is in the majority,” was one it took seriously. “These best practices serve the Senate well,” he added, “and we will insist on their fair and consistent application.” The then-Senate Minority Leader called the financial disclosure process and other ethical steps essential “to fairly review a nominee’s record and to make an informed decision prior to a vote.”

This is not the first time since Trump’s November victory that McConnell has completely reversed himself on the senate’s “advise and consent” process. After refusing to even allow a confirmation hearing for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland for nearly a year the longest delay in American history and refusing to commit to allowing a confirmation vote even if Hillary Clinton won, McConnell said on Wednesday that “the American people simply will not tolerate” it if Democrats refuse to confirm a Trump Supreme Court nominee.

On Sunday morning, McConnell said on Face the Nation that Democrats should stop making “procedural complaints” and “grow up.

Senate to Begin Confirmation Hearings for Wealthiest Cabinet in US History Despite Lack of Vetting

Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!: A barrage of Senate confirmation hearings is set to begin Tuesday for what could be the wealthiest cabinet in modern American history. This comes despite concerns that ethics clearances and background checks are incomplete for several of President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet picks. ….Watch the Video and Read the Transcript 


Ethics official warns against confirmations before reviews are complete

The concerns come on the eve of a slew of hearings — and a first big test for the incoming Trump administration.

By Ed O’Keefe and Sean Sullivan  •  Read more »


Warren: No Confirmation Hearings for Trump Appointees Until They’re Vetted for Conflicts of Interest

By David Ferguson, Raw Story

Warren made a declaration on Twitter. READ MORE»

You need determine for yourself if that is what the NYT suggests

…You need determine for yourself if that is what the NYT suggests…

NYT calls for sabotage of alternative media… following Soviet-era KGB subversion plan… see stunning video

I hope you all realize we are on the verge of an attempted leftist-communist uprising / revolution / coup attempt in America.

The next two weeks may be the most dangerous in the history of America since the Civil War.

Yesterday, the New York Times openly called for economic sabotage against independent media. It’s perfectly following a Soviet-era KGB subversion plan for a Marxist/Communist takeover of the nation… something the radical left is desperately attempting to pull off before Inauguration Day.

Click here to read my analysis and watch the stunning video by Soviet propagandist Yuri Bezmenov (who lays out the plan now being followed by the NYT).

Also today: Remember the Adya Clarity dietary supplement product I exposed years ago? Former Adya marketer Kacper Postawski has given me a "tell all" interview where he spills the entire back story on how a clinical trial was faked (not by him, but by a company they hired), how the product was "irresponsibly" marketed and much more.

It’s a fascinating video interview about how dietary product can be dishonestly marketed with totally false claims (and why you should make sure the products you purchase are laboratory verified).

Click here for the article, video and transcript.

Why as JFK had his brother as Attorney General…???

…Why as JFK had his brother as Attorney General…???

Donald Trump will name his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to a senior White House role. The move could test anti-nepotism laws.

Monday, January 9, 2017 1:24 PM EST


Jared Kushner, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s son-in-law and a major real estate developer in New York, will be named senior adviser to the president, transition officials confirmed.

Read more »

Really, Ken … …still think …“Greed is good”…

clip_image002…Really, Ken …

…still think …“Greed is good”…

…Quite an image you built for your Diamondback baseball team in Phoenix…

…And I can’t honestly wish you good luck…