President Trump’s speech before 50 Muslim leaders in Saudi Arabia did not break new ground in terms of America’s Middle Eastern policy. However, it was highly significant for at least four reasons.

First, Trump mentioned “terror” or “terrorism” 30 times. In stark contrast, during President Obama’s (in)famous speech Cairo speech in 2009, he did not mention terrorism at all. More importantly, President Trump spoke directly of “the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires.”

To fight against this, Trump urged, “means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”

And remember: Trump said this in the heart of Islamic holy land, Saudi Arabia.

The president called on these Muslim leaders to “drive out” the terrorists from “your places of worship . . . your communities . . . your holy land, and this earth.”

Yes, these terrorists are currently in some of your mosques, and you need to drive them out.

To say that, in that setting, required chutzpah.

Trump also announced the founding of a new Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology, located in the heart of the Islamic World. “This groundbreaking new center represents a clear declaration that Muslim-majority countries must take the lead in combating radicalization.”

It’s about time that Muslim leaders were urged to combat this deadly ideology.

Calling Out Iran

Second, Trump identified Iran as the enemy, linking Iran directly and repeatedly to Islamic terrorism.

He called it “the government that gives terrorists … safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment.”

He labeled it “a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region.”

He stated, “From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms, and trains terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. For decades, Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror.”

He said, “It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.”

This had to sting Iran. And this had to be unprecedented for an American president speaking in such a setting. (Note also that some of the Muslim leaders there presumably want to see Israel destroyed,. Still, Trump spoke of this as evil.) Elsewhere, Trump mentioned Shias and Sunnis together. So he was stating that his issue with was terrorism, not Islamic sectarianism.

Not surprisingly, CNN offered an article critical of Trump’s speech. Tehran University professor Hamed Mousavi said, “It will be met with deep skepticism in the Muslim world because Trump has been hostile and offensive to Muslims — with his Muslim travel ban, for example. All they’ve seen so far from Donald Trump is a lot of hostility.”

What else should we have expected from an Iranian professor? His country was just slammed as a major agent of terror by the President of the United States before dozens of Muslim leaders. Should we have expected him to greet Trump’s words warmly?

Professor Mousavi also spoke against our new arms deal with the Saudis. He did raise a legitimate point regarding our inability to combat Wahabism, the fundamentalist expression of Islam that dominates Saudi Arabia and has helped spurn radical Islamic terrorism. But his critical comments should be expected, since Saudi Arabia and Iran are arch-enemies.

CNN provided no context to Mousavi’s critique, which must now be read with a big grain of salt.

Note also that Trump never proposed a generic “Muslim travel ban” (as claimed by the professor). That was the exaggeration of a hostile media and Trump’s political opponents.

Hamas and Hezbollah = ISIS and Al-Qaeda

Third, the president put Hamas and Hezbollah in the same category as ISIS and Al-Qaeda. This means that opposition to Israel is not a justification for terrorism. He said, “The true toll of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and so many others, must be counted not only in the number of dead. It must also be counted in generations of vanished dreams.”

The significance of this was not missed by a Lebanese professor, who, CNN reports, “pointed out that Trump equated Hezbollah, a Lebanese political and military group made up mostly of Shia Muslims, with ISIS and al Qaeda. Hezbollah was conceived in the early 1980s primarily to fight against Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon.”

The professor, Karam Makdisi, claimed this was irresponsible on several levels. “With Israeli rhetoric increasing against Lebanon, this does not bode well. The Lebanese will not put much stock in yet another grand speech, but they will keep an eye out for Trump’s position towards Israel’s threats against Lebanon, and any shift in US policy towards Syria.”

I’m sure that Prof. Makdisi was not the only Muslim intellectual who got Trump’s point loudly and clearly. To paraphrase: “You may call Hamas and Hezbollah freedom fighters against the Israeli occupation. We call them terrorists.”

The Sick Theology of Martyrdom by Murder

Fourth, Trump rejected the theology of martyrdom by suicide bombing: “Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death.”

He said, “This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it. This is a battle between Good and Evil.”

Trump also made clear that the victims of this terror are primarily Muslims. He said that “the deadliest toll has been exacted on the innocent people of Arab, Muslim and Middle Eastern nations. They have borne the brunt of the killings and the worst of the destruction in this wave of fanatical violence. Some estimates hold that more than 95 percent of the victims of terrorism are themselves Muslim.”

Somehow, another critic cited by CNN missed this emphatic statement.

Former Jordanian Justice Minister Ibrahim Aljazy said, “Referencing ‘Islamic’ terrorist organizations only will not be appreciated by the vast majority of people in the region when other forces are carrying out acts of aggression, especially as Arabs and Muslims are the prime victims of these organizations.”

Did Mr. Aljazy not hear Trump’s words?

Perhaps CNN needs to vet its Trump-critics more carefully. At the least, they should have qualified some of the quotes. But again, is anyone surprised?

Standing on Holy Islamic Ground

Turning back to President Trump, we can certainly debate his policies, actions, and words at home. (I am not Trump’s defender-in-chief. Not anywhere near it.)

We can question the propriety of the massive arms deal with Saudi Arabia. (Will this be used to finance terror? Will it lead to more bloodshed in the region? Is this good for Israel too?)

But we should not question the landmark nature of Trump’s speech, which also referenced the oppression of women and called on these Muslim nations to lead the way in repatriating Muslim refugees.

In short, an American president stood on holy Islamic ground and called on 50 Islamic leaders to fight against Islamic terrorism. This is highly significant. (For more from the author of “The Significance of Trump’s Historic Address to Muslim Leaders” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

President Donald Trump’s budget proposal, to be rolled out Tuesday, likely will include Medicaid reform. But with several approaches having been floated, definitive answers will have to wait until the White House releases the fiscal plan.

During his Senate confirmation hearings in January, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said he would look at changes to Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor.

Medicaid covers about 70 million low-income Americans. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia expanded eligibility for Medicaid under Obamacare.

When serving as House Budget Committee chairman as a congressman from Georgia, Price advocated giving Medicaid funds to states in block grants as a way of providing more flexibility.

“Block grants would save the federal government money, but would shift that cost to the states,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan research group in Washington, told The Daily Signal. “When a state has more skin in the game, will it be more cost-effective? Yes. But perhaps not enough to deal with the new expense.”

Another solution, Goldwein said, is to cap “provider taxes,” which states impose on health care providers. He said states use the tax to get more money from the federal government without losing revenue. The federal government prevents states from taxing health providers more than 6 percent.

He said most states make deals with hospitals to increase Medicaid payments in exchange for taxing the hospital by the same amount, then go to the federal government presenting a need for a larger subsidy based on the larger payment from the state to the hospitals.

“If you phased [the state provider taxes on hospitals] out to 0 percent, it would save $100 billion” on Medicaid, Goldwein said. “If you cut to 5.5 percent, it would save about $10 billion.”

Fiscal hawks long have argued that the federal government’s main entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—are the key drivers of the national debt and deficit spending.

In March, four Republican governors—John Kasich of Ohio, Rick Snyder of Michigan, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas—touted their own proposal to reform Medicaid.

In a letter to Congress, the four governors said any reform should have work requirements, allow options on eligibility and what drugs are covered, and continue to allow the Medicaid expansion that occurred under Obamacare.

A better solution would be for the government to provide premium supports to encourage people to move on to private health insurance plans, said Robert Moffitt, senior fellow for health policy at The Heritage Foundation.

“Able-bodied Medicaid recipients, we’re not talking about someone who is disabled or in a nursing home, could receive a defined premium support to be mainstreamed into private insurance,” Moffit told The Daily Signal.

This would accomplish two things—reducing spending and helping patients, he said:

This Medicaid population would then have access to more doctors, since most doctors take private insurance and fewer are taking Medicaid. This population is also relative younger, which usually has a positive impact on the insurance pool. That could drive down cost for the rest of the American population.

Government data found 11.5 million able-bodied adults were on Medicaid.

In their recently passed American Health Care Act, House Republicans adopted a Heritage Foundation policy proposal that would change Medicaid to a per capita cap on funding for states that would be limited to medical inflation plus 1 percent.

Medicaid recipients’ access to doctors has become more limited, according to a study last year that found 1 in 3 available physicians don’t see Medicaid patients.

The White House Office of Management and Budget did not respond to email inquiries Friday from The Daily Signal about whether, and which, Medicaid reforms would be part of the budget proposal.

“I assume the reform will probably be tied to the House Budget Committee, and would propose to block-grant Medicaid, as the House Republican budget has proposed for years,” Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Signal.

Edwards said he also anticipates the Trump administration will go after waste, fraud, and abuse for all entitlements, including Social Security and Medicare. Doing so could save tens of billions of dollars, but still make only a little dent in budget deficits or the debt.

A report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, released Friday, dismissed tackling waste as a long-term solution. The report by the private group says:

Importantly, there is no way to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid even close to sustainable simply by reducing fraud. However, broadly defined program integrity—for example, reducing excessive provider payments and using competition or negotiation to get better prices in Medicare, restricting the ability of states to inflate their federal match in Medicaid, or encouraging and helping workers with disabilities return to work in Social Security—can represent a starting point for entitlement reform. Still, it would be impossible to fix Social Security and Medicare solely through program integrity—even using a broad definition—and, ultimately, tough choices will need to be made to bring the costs of these programs under control.

Of the three main entitlements, Medicaid is the most sustainable, Moffit said.

“You can’t get control of federal debt and deficits unless you address Social Security and Medicare,” Moffit said. “Otherwise, it’s just not going to happen.” (For more from the author of “The Major Entitlement Overhaul That Could Be Part of Trump’s Budget” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.