The Trump Administration Shouldn’t Imitate the Obama Administration’s Crony Energy Style

Solar, wind and the like are awful returns on your energy investment dollar (also known as taxes). On their own – and even more so when compared to real energy sources like coal and oil.

And fake energy sources – claiming to be “green” – are absolutely awful for the environment.

Spent solar panels – must be handled as if they are nuclear waste. Wind turbines – also must be made of toxic materials. And wind turbine farms – are giant bird blenders. They mow down hundreds of thousands of fowl per annum.

And of course – these “green” energy sources can not exist without massive infusions of government cash. When the subsidies go away – so too do the “fake” energy companies.

If you are so awful at whatever it is you do that you need government money to continue to exist – you shouldn’t continue to exist.

As I have always said: Government doesn’t pick winners and losers – it picks losers at the expense of winners.

Government takes money from winners – people who have succeeded, and thus pay taxes – and hand it to losers who have proven they can not succeed, and thus need government money.

Good ideas are…good ideas. And require no government money. No one needs to subsidize ice cream.

Green energy…is an awful idea (let the private sector take care of it). And thus requires tons of government money.

The Barack Obama Administration loved bad ideas. And LOVED spending tons of government money on them. Green energy – was a particular love thereof.

And why did the Obama Administration engage in this inanity – aside from ideological idiocy? Why, crony idiocy of course.

80% of DOE Green Energy Loans Went to Obama Backers

Thankfully, finally – the Barack Obama Administration is in the rearview mirror. We now have the Donald Trump Administration – which has spent some of its time undoing what its predecessor did.

But unfortunately – some habits die hard. Like heaping government money upon people who aren’t hacking it on their own.

The Trump Administration’s Energy Department – is poised to continue this awful Obama Administration Energy Department practice. Only with different government-money crony-recipients:

“In January, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) unanimously rejected a profoundly anti-competitive proposal by the Energy Department to provide billions in subsidies to old, unprofitable power plants. After the exceptional political blowback from its attempt to pick winners (or more aptly, subsidize losers), Energy Department officials are back to the drawing board. But have they learned?

“The early signs indicate a clear ‘no.’ Key political appointees at the Energy Department (DOE) are ignoring evidence and bypassing their own in-house experts to funnel financial aid to unprofitable power plants. The motives couldn’t be more obvious – the same politically-tied companies that drove the last proposal are back at it again because they can’t compete in the marketplace.”

Fantastic. More government money – for more political cronies. How very Obama Administration of the Trump Administration.

Everyone involved in the process of generating and delivering real energy – and not on the government money recipient list – are vociferously opposed. The opposition – is bipartisan and nigh universal:

“Democrats and former George W. Bush administration energy officials decried the proposal while consumer and environmental groups joined free-market think tanks, including the R Street Institute and The Heritage Foundation, in opposition….

“Broad coalitions – such as the Affordable Energy Coalition – have formed in defense of markets….

“Grid operators strongly opposed the department’s proposal, citing deep anti-competitive concerns and saying it was not necessary to preserve grid reliability. FERC’s decision echoed this sentiment….

“Heavy industry, dismayed by the Energy Department proposal, told Congress that ‘DOE is saying manufacturing jobs are not as important as the jobs at economically obsolete…power plants.’ It’s not the role of the federal government to determine whose job is more important.”

Indeed “it’s not the role of the federal government to determine whose job is more important.”

The Trump Energy Department’s response – was very Obama-esque:

“Almost comically, Energy Department officials responded by suggesting that they needed to ‘help FERC members understand the importance of coal’ to electric reliability and resiliency.”

This DOE proposal – is unadulterated cronyism. No more – no less:

“At the nexus of incompetence and cronyism lies the pinnacle of bad governance. For an administration that promised to drain the swap, energy subsidies do precisely the opposite. Subsidizing unprofitable power plants puts cronies, not America, first….

“Economic fundamentals, not cronyism, should drive electricity investment decisions. Competitive electricity markets align economic incentives and put customers, not well-connected companies, first. Putting private capital at risk, rather than socializing risk through taxpayer or ratepayer-funded subsidies and regulated monopolies, ensures that companies properly assess their investments. This is why competitive markets have outperformed monopoly investments, resulting in cost-efficient investments, increased innovation and more choice for American families and businesses….

“If power plants are profitable, subsidies only serve to pad a company’s bottom line. If they’re not profitable, taxpayers should not prop them up. Rather than keeping them on life support, government should allow economic failures to fail so that those resources are free to flow to more useful purposes elsewhere in the economy.”

Here’s hoping this massive, bipartisan opposition – and their massive assertion of reality – will lead to a change of heart…and minds:

“In an April 2017 memo, (Energy) Secretary (Rick) Perry requested a study examining the country’s electricity markets and reliability. The Energy Department should seek to enhance competitive markets by following through on technical recommendations from the resulting staff report.

“Furthermore, the department should offer its modeling and other in-house technical capabilities to grid operators and FERC officials as they continue to examine grid resilience. This would complement a broader conservative energy reset, anchored by a commitment to competition, customer choice and good governance.”

We need a change of Obama pace. And, actually, a change from decades of bipartisan DC awful:

“For decades, the federal government has implemented distortionary energy subsidies and regulations. Further undermining competitive markets and pouring billions in subsidies to cronies is a surefire way to harm all energy customers, stifle innovation and promote energy dependence on handouts. Congress should press the administration for a course correction – or else members will face the wrath of dismayed voters with higher energy bills this fall.”

Let us, finally, return to an actual free market energy system – and thereby reassert just a little bit of Reality in DC.

Advertisements

You’re not allowed to root for both the White Sox and the Cubs… But why?

This blog post has very little to do with politics. As a Chicagoan and a devout White Sox (as Obama is too (probably his only good quality)), I get very annoyed (and I am sure Cubs fan get annoyed too) with baseball “fans” claiming that they are both Sox and Cubs fans; and with the City Series starting up today, I thought that today was a great day to write a post about Chicago baseball:


We are told from the time we are children that we can be almost anything we wish in this great country of ours — except, of course, a real fan of both the White Sox and the Cubs.

North Korea will unite with South Korea before that is acceptable. Cheering both Chicago baseball teams simply isn’t done.

When it is; often but not exclusively by craven politicians, children too young to know any better and/or those who don’t truly care that much about either team; practically no one who does care believes the sincerity or depth of commitment.

You may object to this as a gross simplification.

You may say it is not true and that you are living proof.

There’s no need to call, write, post or tweet to say, “But I do sincerely cheer for both teams.”

Tell yourself anything you want. Your friends, relatives and colleagues know.

If the dual Sox-Cubs fan does in fact exist, it is baseball’s equivalent of Schrodinger’s cat, which offers the possibility of something being two opposite things simultaneously even when always seen by observers only as one or the other.

Do we really want to add quantum mechanics to the sabermetrics and analytics in baseball?

Didn’t think so.

Besides, the decided and distinct split between the fan bases predates even the Sox’s existence. It is by design.

What drew blood was when, after a year of minor-league ball in 1900, the White Stockings’ American League took on the Chicago Orphans’ National League as a rival major league.

Sometimes, particularly for a newcomer to the Chicago area not already aligned with a team, loyalty is a matter of individual choice. Other times first allegiance is passed down from generations, like one’s religious heritage.

Defy your parents if you wish, but acceptance of their choice is the path of least resistance while living under their roof, no matter what your friends and neighbors embrace.

As a teen, you may rebel; as an adult, you are free to be who you want to be. There are mixed marriages and families divided north and south that do just fine over time.

But the unwritten rules do not change, and somewhere between “Bat, flipping” and “Pitch, knockdown” you’ll find the one about choosing the Sox or Cubs and how embracing both is verboten.

We’re increasingly an open-minded society (which sometimes has negative consequences). Unfortunately, every other hard-and-fast rule and traditional allegiance in law, lifestyle and culture has been pulled apart or at least greatly loosened in recent years.

But Sox and Cubs? If you can’t pick one and one only, you must pick neither.

Intellectually, this admittedly makes no sense.

The two ballclubs meet no more than a half-dozen times in a 162-game regular season. They compete for different division titles, different playoff berths and different pennants.

Emotionally too there should be more than enough love within a single heart to go around and be shared for two teams that barely have enough historic success between them to adequately return the affection.

Too many disappointments to count over the years is merely one of many things the Cubs and Sox have in common, along with ballplayers such as Jose Quintana, Sammy Sosa, Steve Stone, Jeff Samardzija and Ron Santo.

But even if what unites the two teams is greater than what separates them, there’s a Mendoza line in the lakefront sand for fans that those on either side do not want crossed.

Fans of one team do not necessarily have to despise the other. Disinterest is also acceptable.

Some may refuse to set foot in the other team’s ballpark. But when one does, it is OK to rise (NOT cheer) when the home fans do against a neutral opponent, similar to how non-Catholics rise but remain in their pews when others in their row take communion.

A few (traitor) Cubs fans in 2005 were swept up in the Sox’s World Series championship, but they eventually wound up again in one camp or the other. Same for some of the (traitor) Sox fans who may have “justified” the siren call of the 2016 Cubs bandwagon (big emphasis on the bandwagon) fleet by saying they were simply in the habit of rooting against the Indians.

No one alive remembers choosing to root for the Sox or Cubs in an all-Chicago World Series. As Cubs fans will tell you, it was played almost 112 years ago in 1906. Sox fans will note their team won it in six games.

It is proof that anything is possible.

Were these two clubs somehow to meet in a World Series for a second time, perhaps anyone whose heart survives the shock will be so glad to be alive they won’t care who wins.

Rooting for both teams, however, is still likely to be seen as rooting for neither.

On the Syrian Bombing…

The motivation for Great Britain, France and the United States to use their air power to downgrade Assad’s capability to use chemical weapons is to send a message to the other rogue states that in this, on this earth we cannot permit, the Western powers, cannot permit chemical weapons or nuclear weapons and we just can’t permit them to be used.

Now, there are a number of people who doubt that Assad the dictator of Syria, is using chlorine and the other chemical weapons. There is no one else on the planet that has the delivery system to place chlorine gas in a suburb of Damascus, no one, it’s either Assad or nobody. Now, he’s got a history all the intelligence agencies agree that he’s doing it. Macon of France and Theresa May of Great Britain never in a million years would have signed on with Donald Trump to bomb Syria had their intelligence services, not said it’s Assad. So, the bombing to downgrade the chemical situation was lawful and legitimate.

Now, whether we should do it or participate you can debate that all day long. But if we’re not going to send messages throughout the world that chemical weapons are unacceptable if we the United States are not going to do that. Who’s going to do it? So, then you’re going to have every tinhorn Decatur having chemical weapons because they’re not hard to develop. That’s what led to the Iraq war that everybody thought Saddam Hussein had this big cache of chemical and biological weapons, it’s turned out to be false by the way. And the intelligence agencies turned out to be wrong, I’ll see that. But now we have a number of attacks in Syria. A number of attacks on the ground the medical people say this baby died from chlorine ingestion. All right, the doctors aren’t lying, so it’s who’s putting the chlorine in? Who’s putting the chemical weapons in as nobody else has a delivery system to do it. It’s not like Syria is a place where you can just drive around with big trucks full of chemical weapons and dump them. You know the military controls Syria. So, if you know anything about this there isn’t any doubt that Assad is the villain and he’s protected by Putin in Russia and Iran.

So, he feels he can get away with it, see he would love, Assad would love to have America and Russia slug it out. Assad would love that so that’s one of the reasons that he continues to do this to try to get a bigger conflict going. Assad is a real evil guy. Now, you turn on the television and you hear the dishonest charlatans say oh this is “wag the dog”. That means the movie, Wag the Dog, where Dustin Hoffman was in. And it’s about a president who gets in trouble and then creates falsifies a military conflict, to get people’s minds off the trouble that he has.

So, immediately these charlatans go out on cable television, network television, “oh it’s Wag the Dog”. So, I’m saying to myself to believe that you would have to believe that Macron of France and May of Great Britain are colluding with Trump to save him from the Mueller investigation, they’re all in it together. The big, big drive to save Donald Trump’s butt. Who on earth would believe that? Who? It’s so moronic, so stupid, so insulting to anyone’s intelligence, yet there they are being paid millions of dollars sitting there by major corporations spouting this gibberish and I’m just sitting there going how much are people going to take? And you know what, there’s an audience for it, there’s an audience for, you would think that these people who are bereft of honesty who all day long, their agenda is to destroy people with whom they disagree including Donald Trump. You would think that people, everybody would say you know what enough I’m going to waste my time watching that. I’m not going to waste my time reading that newspaper. I know everything in that newspaper is already a foregone conclusion. The journalistic industry no longer is searching for the truth, they don’t care from the top down. A narrative is put forth to all the journalists who work in the company, and they know that their editors, producers whatever it may be, want to get Trump (awfulness from MSNBC, CNN, NYT, Stephanopoulos, and other countless outlets) or in some cases want to protect (awfulness from Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Fox & Friends, just to name a few) Trump, then rank and file know that. So, when they’re given an assignment, it’s implied, this is what we’re looking for.

So, the people reporting know what is expected of them if they want to keep their job and get good assignments. Same thing on cable TV, the pundits know what their role is, what they’re expected to say, if they don’t say it, they’re not going to be on. So, these people they go on television oh it’s Wag the Dog, So, there wasn’t anything necessary to do in Syria, it is just Trump wanted to do it to get away from the Mueller investigation and, and Macron and Theresa May, they’re helping the what kind of a moron. I mean really a 6-year-old wouldn’t say that, if they if you gave them the facts they would go, no that doesn’t really sound right, but these people are paid millions of dollars to spit this stuff out every night. It’s unbelievable, and they and people watch all right.

So, summing up the message was to the world you can’t use chemical weapons to kill anybody, much less women and children and if you do the major Western powers are going to hurt you. I don’t object to that message, I do not, even though I know the history of Iraq and how we got involved in something that we should not have gotten involved with based upon wrong information and whatever, I will see that but each situation has to be taken on its own merits.

Paul Ryan: The Speaker Who Spoke About Deficits

Most know how to get most members of Congress and candidates to mumble uncomfortably: Ask for their plans to deal with the nation’s troubling debt load and unsustainable Medicare and Social Security burdens. Politicians love to make lofty promises; they hate to be associated with responsible budget-cutting proposals.

One high-profile exception to that rule is U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, who announced Wednesday he will leave Congress at the end of his current term. Ryan’s been a favorite of mine through his years in Washington because he isn’t afraid to talk about the trillions of dollars America doesn’t have — but spends anyway! — for entitlements. And he sticks his neck out to propose budget solutions.

Back in 2011 when the national debt was $15 trillion and Ryan was about to be accused in an attack advertisement of “throwing granny off the cliff”, he said he’d keep trying to fix massive social programs like Medicare, in order to protect America’s future fiscal health.

“What if your congressman, your president knew what was coming and did nothing?” “… Everyone tells me that I’m giving our political adversaries the massive political weapon to use in the next campaign. Yes, we are. But you know, if you don’t start fixing these things ….”- Speaker Paul Ryan

Today the national debt is $21 trillion. The Medicare trust fund that pays hospital expenses will be depleted in 2029, according to a recent estimate. Social Security will have a shortfall beginning in 2034. Yet the 2018 election season will find many candidates, especially Democrats, embracing a form of universal health insurance they call “Medicare for all.” How to pay for it? Voters are more likely to see another “granny ad” than a detailed plan.

I am not suggesting Ryan, who chaired the House budget and tax-writing committees before becoming speaker, had all the answers. Ryan and his allies in 2011 proposed reining in the deficit and debt partly through a revamping of Medicare that would use a voucher system to provide subsidies for seniors to obtain private insurance. This was a linchpin of the Ryan budget plan. The idea — a more free-market approach — is still floating out there, but the national political focus shifted to Obamacare. Part of Ryan’s concern was that expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act would become another costly burden for states. How to fix or replace Obamacare? Hmm, neither Ryan nor his predecessor as speaker, John Boehner, could solve that thorny problem.

Ryan said he will not seek re-election because it’s time to go home to his family. He doesn’t want to be a permanent “weekend dad.” He never burned with desire to be speaker, but someone in the fractured Republican Party has to wrangle the House cats. Ryan, a respected conservative with strong policy chops, stepped up. Dealing with irascible President Donald Trump made a tough job tougher. Ryan said he isn’t leaving out of fear the Republicans will lose control of the House in November, but such worries seem unavoidable.

No one knows what Ryan plans next. In 2012 he was Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s running mate. In 2016, when Republicans braced for the possibility of a deadlocked convention, I rooted for an alternative to Trump and suggested Ryan. That doesn’t mean he should run for president, or that he would earn my support.

But there should always be a prominent role in politics for principled budget-minders. That is Ryan’s congressional legacy.

Calm Down About the Cohen Raid

I have a very firm stance on the ethicality of the raid on the office, home, and hotel room of Donald Trump’s lawyer.

You ready? Here it is: I have no idea whether it was a proper action. But you’ll have to take it on faith that I didn’t consult the Magic 8 Ball before I concluded: all signs point to yes.

Commenters on the social medias are no doubt representative of a large group of grassroots Republicans. They’re hopping mad. They’re calling this a fascist move.

Let’s take the dumbest possible Trumpist argument as a foil with which to clear away some of the underbrush. This may come across like a constructed strawman, but I’m seeing this point of view in my comments, so let me dismantle it before I take speak in a more measured fashion to the people who have not yet lost their minds.

The dumbest possible Trumpist argument is: This is Robert Mueller acting like a fascist. We are in Nazi America and the Gestapo has been released. Any prosecutor who thinks there is the slightest chance that this is on the level is necessarily corrupt. Seizing attorney-client communications shreds several amendments to the Constitution. Surely there is something wrong when Robert Mueller takes the word of a porn star and nothing else to raid the office of the President’s lawyer. This goes beyond TDS. It’s treason. Why, it’s no different from a SWATting!!!!!!

This is a pretty fair paraphrase of some comments I have seen on the social medias. The crazy stuff — the stuff that sensible people would assume I am making up, because rational people don’t talk like this — it’s all there in posts and comments.

More and more, I feel that I have nothing in common with these people. I realize I’m telling off a lot of people who read what I write. I say this with the highest possible respect: you people have lost your minds.

Let’s tick off some of the facts we know:

  • These warrants weren’t executed under the direction of Robert Mueller. They were executed under the direction of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, a Trump appointee. There’s really no scenario in which this plays out well for Cohen. We know that Robert Mueller is looking at some of Cohen’s involvement in Russia-related activities like Trump Tower Moscow. Mueller seems like a thorough guy, and if he runs across illegal activity by Cohen of any kind in the course of his investigation, he can at a minimum refer those matters to the Justice Department, and conceivably take them on himself. Disbarment might be the least of Cohen’s worries at this point.Federal prosecutors in Manhattan obtained the search warrant after receiving a referral from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, according to Mr. Cohen’s lawyer.It didn’t take a genius to see this coming, but let’s not pretend Robert Mueller was behind this raid. Even Cohen’s lawyer admits this was based on a referral.
  • It is not unprecedented, at all, to serve a warrant on a lawyer’s office. It usually requires higher levels of scrutiny, to be sure — and like many prosecutorial agencies, DoJ requires several levels of approval for such a warrant. They got it here.
  • It is not unprecedented, at all, to seize attorney-client privileged materials. In no way does that constitute a shredding off the right to counsel or any other constitutional provision. Such materials require strict procedures — a “dirty” team or a special master, with rigid separation from the “clean” team — to ensure that the prosecution team does not get their hands on privileged material. But again: this sort of thing happens all the time. If you were unaware of that fact, it’s time you learned it.
  • A federal magistrate approved this. Yes, magistrates sometimes approve bad warrants. But this was a very high-profile warrant, and a magistrate would have a high incentive to look at it verrrry carefully, so as to avoid looking like a fool later.
  • This warrant is almost certainly not based exclusively, or even in any significant part, on the word of Stormy Daniels. Stormy Daniels is, to put it mildly, not a credible person. She has admitted telling lies about this episode in the past. But you know who else has been flapping their gums about this? Michael Cohen and Donald Trump. Between the two of them, they’ve put enough material in the public record out of their own lie-holes for us to know that Cohen put up the hush money for Daniels, days before a presidential election, and went to tremendous and almost certainly unethical (if not illegal) lengths to distance Trump from that payment.
  • Nazis killed millions of Jews. These people were executing a search warrant. Calm the [expletive deleted] down, people!

Do we know that there is a solid foundation of probable cause for this warrant? No. We haven’t read it. Without reading it, we can’t know.

But, taking the above bullet points into account, all signs point to yes.

And if you’re hellbent on assuming, without knowing any facts, that this is a Nazi move — the Gestapo in action; treason before our very eyes — then you’ve gone waaaaay off the rails. You’ve fallen for the propaganda. You’re willing to tar dozens of professionals as Deep State “traitors” based on the propaganda offered by an orange-haired clown and his soulless dunce confederates.

Now: let’s take a giant step backwards and raise a leg to pee on the left for a second.

Nothing here means Donald Trump necessarily committed a crime. It’s far likelier to conclude that a provable crime might be proved against Michael Cohen than Donald Trump.

None of this means there is evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russian government.

What is means is that numerous people in the executive and judicial branches of government thought there was probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found in the office or residence of the President’s lawyer. And that they followed the path laid out in the United States Constitution to learn whether they were right.

Period. End of discussion.

Now calm down, and stop going full insane on the partisanship. Stop, wait, think, listen, and learn. Above all, stop. Stop yammering. Stop screaming that we live in Nazi Germany. You sound like idiots.

Just stop.

If Congress Isn’t Going to Defund Planned Parenthood, Then We Have to Do This Instead

Pro-life conservatives have been frustrated with the ongoing failure to defund Planned Parenthood, and for good reason. America’s largest abortion provider markets itself as a defender of “women’s health,” but performs zero mammograms, willfully covers up statutory rapes, and has had to pay multimillion dollar settlements for Medicaid billing fraud.

All while ending the lives of hundreds of thousands of unborn children for massive profits every year.

So when the latest omnibus spending bill passed with half a billion dollars of funding for Planned Parenthood intact, even with Republicans in control of the White House and both the House and the Senate, conservatives were enraged. And not just because omnibus bills happen because Congress is stupid.

Watching Republicans campaign as pro-life champions every election cycle and then continue to send half a billion freaking dollars — that’s five hundred million dollars, $500,000,000.00 — every year is extremely infuriating.

Now, I don’t believe that Congressional Republicans are secretly pro-choice and actually want to continue providing funding to abortion clinics. What’s far more likely is they are wary of the backlash from Democrats and the media, who would complain that those mean ol’ Republicans are heartlessly cutting medical care to poor women.

Fine. Here’s an easy solution.

Don’t defund the budget for Planned Parenthood. Transfer the money. 

Take all of the money we send to Planned Parenthood clinics, and instead, send the money to medical clinics that provide services to the poor.

Congress has proven they have little appetite for cutting spending, so fine, just take the money we are giving to these abortion clinics and instead, send it to other health clinics in the exact same towns. Dollar for dollar, take it from the abortion clinic and just send it down the street.

The communities will still have the exact same amount of federal funds coming their way, but the money will go much further since it will be going to actual health clinics, and not Planned Parenthood, with its lavish budgets for its political activity, lobbying, contributions to candidates, executives’ salaries and benefits, travel, and events — not to mention all those flashy advertisements, graphics, and videos all over their social media.

And let’s be very clear: there is an abundance of choices for where these funds could be sent.

Drafting the bill should be an open and bipartisan discussion. Members of Congress should take into consideration the clinics in their own districts that are providing excellent care to the needy in their communities. If the Democrats truly care about women’s health, they should participate in the debate and offer amendments with their suggestions.

Some ideas for qualifying for the funds could include accepting Medicaid patients, providing a certain percentage of services pro bono or at reduced costs, being in operation for a certain number of years to prove stability, providing comprehensive prenatal and gynecological health care, and so on.

A similar program was adopted in Texas in 2013. The state cut funding to abortion providers and created the “Healthy Texas Women” program, providing low-income women with birth control, family planning services, and other health care. A Daily Signal report called the program a success, with the state’s pregnancy rate remaining relatively stable and abortions dropping.

There was also a massive drop in Medicaid and contraceptive claims, which liberals attempted to frame as a negative, but a federal civil suit was brought against Planned Parenthood for Medicaid billing fraud from 2003 to 2009 and eventually settled for $4.3 million dollars. Plus, the enactment of Obamacare during this period meant that women with those policies were entitled to free contraception. In other words, when another government program provided contraception coverage and the fraud spigot was cut off, that made the number of claims go down, not women forgoing necessary medical care.

“The data belies the claim that Planned Parenthood was necessary to women’s health care in Texas,” said Casey Mattox, a senior legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom.

The Democrats say they care about women’s health care. The Republicans say they don’t want to send money to an abortion provider. Fine. This solution lets both parties do what they say they want to do. 

If we can’t get our Republican-controlled Congress to cut spending, let’s at least quit sending money to America’s largest abortion provider, and send it somewhere it can still help women.

Why the Stormy Daniels “Scandal” Is the Most Irrelevant Story Ever

There’s nothing better than a good ole “intellectual” debate:

//fave.api.cnn.io/v1/fav/?video=us/2018/03/27/thug-michael-avenatti-stormy-daniels-sot.cnn&customer=cnn&edition=domestic&env=prod

Congratulations CNN! You’ve finally gone full Jerry Springer, all that’s missing is the hair pulling and that three hundred pound bouncer.

I wonder if this is what Anderson Cooper (aka A. Coops) wanted as a career path? From high class to absolute crass? And for what? To prove that Trump had consensual sex not with his wife before he became president? I think America has filed that under the “so what?” category.

As for me, you will not hear a bad word about Stormy and unlike Hillary and her friends, I won’t besmirch the women. I’m going to wait until Trump has nine (yes, NINE) Oval Office encounters with one of his interns fresh out of college and until he is actually accused by a woman who actually came to him for help. In the meantime, in the wise words of Greg Gutfeld, all we have is a story about a romp, a decade ago at a golf tournament. But with Trump, everyone knew his flaws before they voted: decades as a tabloid staple didn’t hurt, as well as all of those prize winning “reporters” now on the gossip beat. And that Access Hollywood tape helped. Funny, that tape existed for years, tucked away in some creepy network guy’s closet, until it was leaked just before an election. What are the odds of that? No seriously, what are the odds? (Please sense the sarcasm.)

And so, CNN sacrifices what is left of its reputation, trying to undo an election. They think if only people had another chance to vote for Hillary, they’d forget about the woman who ridiculed her husband’s accusers.

Congrats CNN! You’ve redefined hard news. And for this anti-Trump “golf bag” the Hitler “club” didn’t work, the mental instability “iron” didn’t work, the chaos “iron” didn’t work, the collusion “putter” failed, the medical examination “driver” flopped, so bring on the sex “scandal” “sand wedge”.

What is CNN’s point with all of this? They are trying to undermine (again) the American presidency with this. Its one situation that happened before Trump’s presidency. Ok, now what? What are they trying to do? Impeach the president? Or are they trying to dirty our current situation some more and muddy the waters?

This irrelevant “scandal” will eventually die down and it will effect no American policy whatsoever. The one question I only have is what creative club will CNN and the media use next time? Only God knows.