Watch Police Call in Backup for Veteran Paying Ticket in Pennies

/0 Comments/in , /by

Stories about citizens paying their taxes with pennies aren’t new. But how Billy Spaulding of Manchester paid his parking ticket with pennies might be a first, since he was packing a sidearm while doing so.

As The Free Thought Project has stated before, “police need you to break traffic laws” because writing tickets and receiving funds from doing so is a considerable revenue generator for police departments. It’s how police states maintain their control over the citizenry.

Manchester police didn’t take kindly to Spaulding’s form of payment, and according to reports, called in a SWAT officer to deal with him. At first, the police told Spaulding he should take his form of payment to the bank to get bills instead of pennies.

“You don’t have a bank account?” one officer asked.

Spaulding responded by saying he didn’t. Whether it’s true or not simply doesn’t matter. Spaulding had every right to pay his extortion fees in pennies. According to U.S. Law Code 31.5103, “United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.”

Spaulding had a friend record the scene. Although the recording does not start and stop at the beginning and the end of the encounter, it does show police intercepting Spaulding, asking him to find some other form of payment, and then telling his friend he has to stop recording because he didn’t announce he was going to do so.

Refusing to allow the two citizens to record themselves paying a parking fee, is considered a violation of one’s First Amendment rights, so long as it does not interfere with the official duties of the officers. Spaulding may have recourse to file a lawsuit for both issues; refusing to receive his form of payment which resulted in his occurring additional expenditures, and his friend being forced to stop recording.

Recently, an activist by the name of Phillip Turner won a judgment in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals who ruled he does (and so does every citizen) have a right to film police.

Entering a courthouse or a police station while being armed is also not illegal in New Hampshire. Spaulding knew that as well, but he reportedly had to take his grievance to the Sheriff’s department before he was allowed to go back to the court house and pay his parking ticket in pennies.

Spaulding may have, however, missed an opportunity to have his ticket nullified. Upon having presented his form of payment, and having witnessed his payment refused, he could have asked a judge to dismiss his $75 ticket. The judge would likely have done so, being fully aware that the Coinage Act of 1965 allows all forms of U.S. currency to be used for payment.

After leaving the sheriff’s office, Spaulding once again presented his $75 worth of pennies as payment for his ticket at the county courthouse. The clerk, having been notified by the sheriff to receive the former Marine’s payment, didn’t seem all too pleased to be doing so. Nonetheless, Spaulding passed through the glass window separating the two individuals, a grand total of 7,500 pennies and a $5 bill just in case he or the clerk miscounted.

Below is the video of this epic encounter.

(For more from the author of “Watch Police Call in Backup for Veteran Paying Ticket in Pennies” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mom Horrified After Finding Police Drone Watching Her Children — in Their Backyard

/0 Comments/in , /by

For decades, in dystopian fictions, readers and watchers alike are very familiar with the idea of state-run drones spying on the entrapped population. Luckily, however, the scenes of drones chasing down or spying on those who dare dissent against authority have been restricted to fantasy — until now.

When Texas resident Bobbie Sanchez walked out in her backyard last week, the last thing she thought she’d see was a drone — hovering — watching her kids.

“Mommy there’s a drone over our roof,” said her children.

According to Sanchez, the drone hovered there long enough for her to take multiple photos and to call the police for help.

However, when Sanchez called the Hurst police department to inform them a drone was spying on her children, the Hurst police department said it was them.

“They’re watching my children play in the backyard,” said Sanchez. “I called the Hurst Police Department and was pretty surprised to hear that it was them.”

According to NBC DFW, Hurst police and fire started using drones earlier this year. They said the day they were over Sanchez’s yard was a training exercise.
Training, in the land of the free, now involves police officers stripping citizens of their privacy and creepily watching their kids.

Dystopian, indeed.

After being caught spying on children, the department now promises that they will tighten down on when and where the drones will be deployed.

“We will not be doing any type of training exercises over houses and things like that,” said Hurst Police Assistant Chief Steve Niekamp.

According to Niekamp, the department’s drones will now only launch of crime scenes, accident scenes, to find a suspect, an active shooter, or a missing person. The fire department may also use them to strategize on fighting fires.

“We’re working for our citizens, if they have concerns then we definitely need to address it,” said Niekamp in an obvious understatement.

When Sanchez’ neighbors got news of the drone they were outraged, naturally.

“It might be legal but it’s still creepy to think that police can be saying that they’re training or looking for a criminal and still be looking at you in your backyard,” said neighbor Casey Byrnes.

Others told NBC DFW that they feel betrayed and that their trust in police is damaged.

In a truly liberty-loving tone, Sanchez stated, “I am not a person who will give up privacy for safety.”

The use of drones in policing is a slippery slope. While fears of active shooters and missing children will be used to justify them, if history is any indicator, these drones will ultimately be used to further deteriorate what little semblance of privacy left in America.

Also, guns.

As the Free Thought Project reported last week, Connecticut may be the first state in the country to allow police officers to put deadly weapons on drones. Some states have discussed equipping drones with tasers but this is the first proposal to arm them with deadly weapons. What could possibly go wrong?

The good news is, in a recent ruling, a Kentucky man has prevailed in a lawsuit he faced over shooting down a drone that entered his property.

William Meredith became known as the “drone slayer” in 2015, after he used a shotgun to dismantle a drone operated by David Boggs, that he says was flying over his property in front of himself and his daughter. Meredith initially faced felony charges of endangerment and criminal mischief for shooting down the drone. The criminal charges were dismissed by Judge Rebecca Ward in Bullitt County District Court, citing recollections from witnesses who said that the drone was flying under the tree line. Ward also said that Meredith was within his rights to shoot down the drone.

According to Meredith, that drone, like the police drone in Hurst — was also watching his children.

However, we shouldn’t rely on this case to hold up against the blue privilege associated with shooting down ‘official police property’ — even if it is watching your kids in your own backyard. (For more from the author of “Mom Horrified After Finding Police Drone Watching Her Children — in Their Backyard” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Leftist Attacks on Pence’s Moral Guidelines Are a Denial of Human Nature

/0 Comments/in , /by

The left’s bizarre and almost hysterical reaction to Vice President Pence’s marital guidelines is not only off point. It misses the most essential point of all. Namely, that it’s Pence’s high esteem for women — and for the most important woman in his life, his own wife — that fuels his moral choices. At the same time, the leftist response reveals a glaring lack of self-awareness.

Uproar Over Pence’s Personal Rule

The uproar began last week when the Washington Post published Ashley Parker’s article, “Karen Pence is the vice president’s ‘prayer warrior,’ gut check and shield.”

The title of this article points to the key role Karen Pence plays in her husband’s life. You might think that would draw praise from feminists and leftists. But no. The article drew rabid responses, including Laura Chapin’s call at US News to “lock him up” (seriously).

Most of the criticism focused on one revelation. “In 2002,” Parker wrote, “Mike Pence told the Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.”

Chapin, a Democratic strategist, responded with this rant:

Then lock him up. Because if your only concept of women is whether you want to have sex with them, something is seriously wrong with you. It presumes women exist only in terms of how men define and perceive them, without autonomy or self-determination. Women exist solely for procreation, which is to be determined and directed by men.

Memo to Mike Pence and the other right-wing men: Women come in more categories than prey and invisible. And none of them want to have sex with you.

Still breathing fire, she concluded her article with this: “Whether Pence is in a room with a single woman is silly but irrelevant. What matters is the millions of American women, and women abroad, to whom his retrograde beliefs and policies pose a threat.” (She was also referring here to the fact that “Pence broke a tie in the Senate to OK legislation allowing states to bar Planned Parenthood from getting public health grants.”)

The Criticism Kept Coming

Not to be outdone, Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal tweeted, “The calling card of all religious fundamentalism: terror of women.” He referenced the tweet of Danish journalist Martin Burcharth: “How differrent [sic] is VP from Orthodox Muslim men? Mike Pence doesn’t eat alone with women.”

On my own Twitter feed, Susan wrote, “Christians will criticize Muslim women for wearing hijabs, but Pence would exclude their presence altogether. That oppression is OK though.”

Over at Vox, attorney Joanna L. Grossman opined that “the practice described by Pence in that 2002 interview is clearly illegal when practiced by a boss in an employment setting, and deeply damaging to women’s employment opportunities.”

Also at Vox, in more moderate tones, a female, evangelical university professor suggested that “good character is better than strict rules,” as if the two had to be in conflict. To the contrary, good character often results in strict rules, although strict rules alone hardly produce good character.

In truth, Mike Pence is exercising good, old-fashioned common sense that is all too rare these days.

Human Beings Get Tempted

Pence sees that it’s easy for human beings to fall into temptation. He made clear that he’s seen all too many marriages destroyed during his years in politics. He said:

I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won. I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election. … Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together.’”

What happens when you spend more time with a woman other than your wife? What happens when you share your victories and sorrows with someone other than your spouse? What happens when you put in late hours together, behind closed doors, leaning on one other for support? (One of Pence’s guidelines was never to work late alone with a female aid.)

The reality is that many, if not most affairs, begin with an emotional attachment rather than a physical attachment.

And let’s remember that Pence is not just protecting himself and his wife Karen. He’s also protecting the women who work for him. Some might grow attached to him and fall into the same dangerous cycle. (If I recall, President Clinton had a bit of a problem with one of his female interns.)

And just imagine what could happen if Pence was accused of sexual impropriety. As one of my Twitter followers observed, “The same liberals would be quick to judge and condemn him if he were to be involved in a sexual act outside of his marriage.”

Looking in the Mirror is Painful

Given all of this, why do so many on the left object to Pence’s rules? Are marriages so solid that safeguards aren’t needed? Is there a need to increase adultery in America? Should we declare war on fidelity?

As Frank Camp wrote on the Daily Wire:

Elected officials in Washington, D.C. are just as flawed as any other human being. Additionally, men and women in positions of power are more frequently the target of unwanted advances, unsubstantiated accusations, and tabloid speculation. Given the environment in which elected officials live, the limitations Pence applies to himself are admirable and prudent.

Camp is right. I for one am glad to have guard rails on the sides of mountainous roads. Or, for that matter, concrete medians in the center of a six-lane highways). And the most conscientious drivers are the first to put on their seat belts. As the old adage goes, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Or, in the words of the apostle Paul, “Let him who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12).

That’s just what Mike Pence has done. He knows that overconfidence can kill. Many on the left, perhaps in denial of human sin, must concoct a different story for Pence’s guidelines. Ironically, in so doing, they reveal an aspect of our fallen nature, namely, our tendency to deceive ourselves about who we really are.

Sometimes it’s hard to look in the mirror. (For more from the author of “The Leftist Attacks on Pence’s Moral Guidelines Are a Denial of Human Nature” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Many Liberal Legal Experts Think a Gorsuch Filibuster Is a Terrible Idea

/0 Comments/in , /by

As Senate Democrats barrel towards a filibuster of Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court, prominent liberal legal commentators and members of his own caucus are urging Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to chart a different course.

Elite legal opinion on the left is certainly not uniform with respect to the Gorsuch filibuster, but it has tended against a filibuster of Gorsuch as a general matter.

Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman has repeatedly urged Democrats not to filibuster Gorsuch, so as to keep their powder dry for future judicial confirmations.

“It would be wise to save it for a Supreme Court nominee who was truly terrible, rather than using it on a well-qualified nominee,” Feldman wrote in late March.

“Neil Gorsuch is no progressive,” he added. “But liberals could do worse — much worse. And it’s the Senate Democrats’ job to do what they can to reduce the risk of an unqualified, radical Trump nominee in the future.” (Read more from “Many Liberal Legal Experts Think a Gorsuch Filibuster Is a Terrible Idea” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

President Trump Defunds UN Abortion Outfit Devoted to Population Control

/0 Comments/in , /by

The State Department has said it will end U.S. funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), a group that promotes abortion overseas.

In a letter to U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, the State Department said it would not fund the UNFPA because it “supports, or participates in the management of, a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”

The State Department said its decision “was made based on the fact that China’s family planning policies still involve the use of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization, and UNFPA partners on family planning activities with the Chinese government agency responsible for these coercive policies.”

The U.N. agency has been linked with human rights abuses around the world, including forced sterilizations and abortions in China.

Forced abortions and sterilizations were uncovered by pro-life journalists in China as recently as 2009. Since Reagan, only the Obama administration has funded the population control group.

The announcement takes Trump’s move to reinstate the Mexico City Policy one step further. That policy withholds U.S. funding for international organizations that perform or promote abortions. This cut will cost the UNFPA $32.5 million. (For more from the author of “President Trump Defunds UN Abortion Outfit Devoted to Population Control” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When Protesters Knock Holes in the Free Speech Bus, They Knock Holes in the Truth About Sexuality

/0 Comments/in , /by

My situation was familiar enough: I was waiting for a bus. My circumstances were somewhat unique, though, because I’d been waiting several days.

I was waiting for the “#FreeSpeechBus.” It’s a project of the National Organization for Marriage, along with CitizenGO and the International Organization for the Family. This bus is hard to miss: It’s bright orange, emblazoned with a message calculated to garner attention. Figures of a girl and boy, marked “XX” and “XY,” stand beside the words, “Boys are boys […] Girls are girls … and always will be. It’s biology.”

Aiming to spark renewed discussion over the rush toward transgender rights, the bus launched two Thursdays ago in Manhattan with a small press event. That afternoon, the trip came screeching to a halt. Figuratively, that is: for the bus was parked, when protesters spray-painted the sides with graffiti messages about “trans liberation,” and smashed holes in its windows with a hammer.

Buzzfeed Gets It Wrong

Though little noted Thursday morning, the bus quickly made headlines following the attack. Buzzfeed proclaimed, “This Bus Is On A Road Trip To Convince You That Transgender People Aren’t Real.”

Now, as the representative quoted in that piece, I can surmise the basis for this spurious charge. Asked whether we believe a “trans woman” is a woman, I answered, “No. We believe if you were born a man, you’re a man.” I stand by that. I object, though, to the claim in the headline. The article itself reveals the unfair inference: for I am also cited saying transgender people suffer a disorder. I stand by this as well.

Buzzfeed thinks I deny the “reality” of a class of people because I think they have a disorder. By “reality” they mean a group who must be approved as they are. Of course I believe transgendered people are real. I believe they are due respect and kindness. But I have to reject the notion that a person with male genitalia and a Y chromosome who “identifies” as a woman is, in fact, a woman. That’s what upsets Buzzfeed.

Another point Buzzfeed misconstrued is one of the tour’s key goals. I expressed a hope that people would speak up — to business owners, bosses, public officials — when they feel uncomfortable with persons of the opposite sex using their locker rooms or other intimate facility. I wasn’t calling for a witch hunt, nor declaring open season for bullying.

Compassion For All

I had been asked why we don’t hear many complaints in places where transgender “bathroom bills” have been implemented. I opined that this might have to do with the fact that people are afraid to speak up.

When one is labelled a “hater” or “bigot” for daring to disagree with the trans agenda, it’s small wonder more people don’t complain. As it happens, though, plenty do complain: We just don’t hear about it.

Take, for example, the lawsuit filed last week in Pennsylvania. A high school boy, uncomfortable undressing in front of a female peer who is now allowed to use the boys’ locker-room, approached the administration. They told him to “act natural.” His parents — the school hadn’t told them about the policy, by the way — received the same airy dismissal when they complained.

The Pennsylvania case indicates another aspect of the stilted reporting on our big orange bus. Generally, the press treats our campaign as lacking compassion. But we do have compassion: we just ask it for all involved.

We are compassionate toward those suffering gender dysphoria. But we are also compassionate to that boy in Pennsylvania and the many, many people like him. His concerns — his feelings, privacy, his body image, his struggles through the turbulent time of puberty — are ignored. He doesn’t matter. He is closed-minded and should lighten up, we are told. His needs are brushed aside in favor of his biologically female peer invading his privacy.

She Doesn’t Count Either

The problem’s even worse when a man invades women’s spaces. Here may be a woman suffering trauma: who, because of past victimization from a sexually violent man has a hard enough time disrobing in front of her peers — even in front of a mirror! — who has every right to be uncomfortable with the status quo progressio.

But she doesn’t count either. She, too, is labeled hateful and bigoted if she complains. She, too, should just lighten up. That man isn’t hurting her, we are told — by those who evidently have no idea how trauma works. Yes, in fact, he is.

After a few days, the #FreeSpeechBus got back on its route, and I was aboard. I hope that the advocates of tolerance don’t respond again to an idea with which they disagree by striking it with a hammer. My greater hope is that the bus and its message won’t be missed: because it is a message of simple truth about biology, and of compassion for those whose voices have been lost in this debate. (For more from the author of “When Protesters Knock Holes in the Free Speech Bus, They Knock Holes in the Truth About Sexuality” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

All Sitting Supreme Court Justices Have Been Involved With Federalist Society, Labeled a ‘Front’ Group by Democrats

/0 Comments/in , /by

Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court choice, came under fire from Democrats Monday because of his involvement with the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization.

“I don’t know what Donald Trump’s judicial philosophy [is] as president, but we sure do know the judicial philosophy of the Federalist Society, which was given the responsibility of coming up with a list of nominees to fill the [Antonin] Scalia vacancy on the Supreme Court,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Monday before Gorsuch’s Senate Judiciary Committee vote.

A new report, however, released Monday by the conservative nonprofit America Rising Squared, or AR2, shows that all current U.S Supreme Court justices, appointed by both Democrats and Republicans, and not just Gorsuch, have been involved with the Federalist Society.

The Federalist Society, established in 1982, was “founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be,” according to the society’s website.

Durbin further voiced his opposition to the involvement of the Federalist Society in the Supreme Court vetting process.

“They did it,” Durbin said. “In fact, the Federalist Society takes pride in the fact that they say that under Republican presidents, every appointment to the Supreme Court has either been a member of the Federalist Society or cleared by the Federalist Society.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., also attacked Gorsuch’s ties to conservative organizations.

“This president chose … a candidate off lists put together by what I consider to be front groups for big special interests,” Whitehouse said. “This nominee’s candidacy was born on a list prepared by right-wing, pro-corporate front groups.”

The report from America Rising Squared shows, however, that justices appointed by both Republican and Democrat presidents have been involved with the the Federalist Society.

Justice Elena Kagan, who was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2010, spoke at a Federalist Society event in 2005 and during her remarks reportedly said, “I love the Federalist Society.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, nominated by Obama in 2009, addressed a meeting of the Federalist Society that year.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have all addressed Federalist Society meetings, as have Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts.

Jeremy Adler, the communications director at America Rising Squared, told The Daily Signal in an email that “Democrats have no grounds to oppose Judge Gorsuch and are reaching for absurd and untrue claims about the Federalist Society to try and smear his immaculate record.”

Individuals who are familiar with the Federalist Society, Adler said, will see that these accusations are baseless.

“Anyone with an understanding of the Federalist Society would quickly recognize that they are not some secretive, extreme ‘front group,’ but are an upstanding organization that exists to preserve freedom and defend the Constitution,” Adler said.

John Malcolm, the director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that the involvement of justices with the Federalist Society should be recognized and commended.

“The Federalist Society is no more ‘extreme’ than its liberal counterpart, the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy,” Malcolm said. “It is heartening, but not surprising, to know that conservative and liberal jurists and scholars regularly participate in Federalist Society events, and that they also do so at [American Constitution Society] events.”

Gorsuch was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006 to serve on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Trump nominated Gorsuch in January to fill the seat of Scalia, who died in February 2016. (For more from the author of “All Sitting Supreme Court Justices Have Been Involved With Federalist Society, Labeled a ‘Front’ Group by Democrats” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Profiling Is Perfectly Reasonable. In Fact, We All Do It.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Profiling is needlessly a misunderstood concept. What’s called “profiling” is part of the optimal stock of human behavior and something we all do.

Let’s begin by describing behavior that might come under the heading of profiling.

Prior to making decisions, people seek to gain information. To obtain information is costly, requiring the expenditure of time and/or money. Therefore, people seek to find ways to economize on information costs.

Let’s try simple examples.

You are a manager of a furniture moving company and seek to hire 10 people to load and unload furniture onto and off trucks. Twenty people show up for the job, and they all appear to be equal except by sex. Ten are men, and 10 are women.

Whom would you hire? You might give them all tests to determine how much weight they could carry under various conditions, such as inclines and declines, and the speed at which they could carry.

To conduct such tests might be costly. Such costs could be avoided through profiling—that is, using an easily observable physical attribute, such as a person’s sex, as a proxy for unobserved attributes, such as endurance and strength.

Though sex is not a perfect predictor of strength and endurance, it’s pretty reliable.

Imagine that you’re a chief of police. There has been a rash of auto break-ins by which electronic equipment has been stolen. You’re trying to capture the culprits.

Would you have your officers stake out and investigate residents of senior citizen homes? What about spending resources investigating men and women 50 years of age or older?

I’m guessing there would be greater success capturing the culprits by focusing police resources on younger people—and particularly young men. The reason is that breaking into autos is mostly a young man’s game.

Should charges be brought against you because, as police chief, you used the physical attributes of age and sex as a crime tool?

Would it be fair for people to accuse you of playing favorites by not using investigative resources on seniors and middle-aged adults of either sex even though there is a non-zero chance that they are among the culprits?

Physicians routinely screen women for breast cancer and do not routinely screen men. The American Cancer Society says that the lifetime risk of men getting breast cancer is about 0.1 percent.

Should doctors and medical insurance companies be prosecuted for the discriminatory practice of prescribing routine breast cancer screening for women but not for men?

Some racial and ethnic groups have higher incidence and mortality from various diseases than the national average.

The rates of death from cardiovascular diseases are about 30 percent higher among black adults than among white adults. Cervical cancer rates are five times greater among Vietnamese women in the U.S. than among white women.

Pima Indians of Arizona have the world’s highest known diabetes rates. Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as it is among white men.

Using a cheap-to-observe attribute, such as race, as a proxy for a costly-to-observe attribute, such as the probability of some disease, can assist medical providers in the delivery of more effective medical services.

For example, just knowing that a patient is a black man causes a physician to be alert to the prospect of prostate cancer. The unintelligent might call this racial profiling, but it’s really prostate cancer profiling.

In the real world, there are many attributes correlated with race and sex. Jews are 3 percent of the U.S. population but 35 percent of our Nobel Prize winners.

Blacks are 13 percent of our population but about 74 percent of professional basketball players and about 69 percent of professional football players.

Male geniuses outnumber female geniuses 7-to-1. Women have wider peripheral vision than men. Men have better distance vision than women.

The bottom line is that people differ significantly by race and sex. Just knowing the race or sex of an individual may on occasion allow us to guess about something not readily observed. (For more from the author of “Profiling Is Perfectly Reasonable. In Fact, We All Do It.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservatives Skeptical of White House’s Proposed Changes to Obamacare Replacement Bill

/0 Comments/in , /by

Less than two weeks since the collapse of Republicans’ plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, lawmakers and White House officials have revived talks aimed at crafting a health care bill that can make it through Congress.

But a new pitch from the White House designed to get conservative lawmakers on board, though in its early stages, already has left some conservatives skeptical.

“The goal for the Freedom Caucus has always been we want to see a reduction in [health insurance] prices. That’s still the bottom line,” Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., told The Daily Signal. “We’re open to any package of ideas that gets us to that goal of lower premiums.”

“We’re still not quite there yet,” he said. “It’s not a heavy lift, and we always say we’re for free markets. Well, now we have to walk the walk here and get some free markets and drive the price down for the kids.”

The potential deal, on which details are beginning to trickle out, attempts to address conservatives’ most significant concern—they won’t support a health care bill that doesn’t result in lower premiums.

Vice President Mike Pence, joined by White House budget director Mick Mulvaney and President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, outlined the plan to woo conservatives Monday night during a Freedom Caucus meeting.

The potential agreement would allow states to apply for a waiver from the federal government to exempt them from some of Obamacare’s regulations, including the community rating provision, which prohibits insurers from charging sicker customers more through higher premiums.

The Trump administration is also looking at allowing states to opt out of the “essential health benefits” requirements implemented by Obamacare, a list of 10 services that plans are required to cover, and narrowing use of a $115 billion “stability fund” to be spent on high-risk insurance pools.

The approach again could open Republican lawmakers to the charge that, despite their campaign pledges, this particular bill would not repeal Obamacare in full.

“What we all need to acknowledge is that you either are going to keep the framework of Obamacare in place or say we’re going to not have the framework of Obamacare in place,” Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., told The Daily Signal.

“Right now, people are saying you Republicans promised to repeal Obamacare, and if you’re going to keep the framework in place so that states have to opt out, or if you have to rely on a bureaucrat, [then] Price is our bureaucrat,” Biggs said, referring to Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. He added:

After this administration is over, we don’t know who the next bureaucrat will be. While Tom Price is going to go through and switch off all the light switches as he possibly can on the regulations, there’s no guarantee that the next person if they come from the other party won’t try to come in and put those switches back up. That’s really what people understand, and why I think they’re kind of skeptical about what the proposals are right now in Washington.

The initial pitch from the White House has piqued the interest of Biggs and other members of the Freedom Caucus, who have maintained that they’re open to negotiating. The group of conservative House members are set on unraveling Obamacare regulations that they say increased the price of premiums for Americans.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., the group’s chairman, told reporters Monday that the White House presented a “solid idea.” However, he said, the Freedom Caucus wants to see legislative text, which was expected by late Tuesday.

Biggs said he so far is “agnostic” about the proposal, but found the White House’s attempts to target Obamacare’s regulations “a little bit alluring.”

“There’s some interesting aspects of what was presented, and I think for me, I want to see the language of the bill and analyze the language of the proposal that we have,” he said.

Still, conservative lawmakers are wary of continued control by the federal government over the insurance market, since state governments would need Washington’s approval to opt out of the regulations.

“In one instance, the one I favor, [it’s totally] within the control of the state government to decide what insurance policy provisions best meet the needs of its citizens,” Rep. Mo Brooks, a Freedom Caucus member from Alabama, told The Daily Signal. “In the other instance, the state has to go hat in hand on bended knee, begging the federal government to allow the state to have influence over the insurance policy provisions that are best for that state’s residents.”

Brooks said the agreement presented Monday night to Freedom Caucus members was not one he would support. He said he wants to see Trump and Republican leaders make “larger strides in the direction of what America needs.”

The House GOP leadership’s negotiations over the original bill they said would begin to repeal and replace Obamacare came to a grinding halt March 24 after House Speaker Paul Ryan attempted to bring the legislation, called the American Health Care Act, to a vote.

Ryan withdrew the bill after opposition from conservatives and centrists indicated the votes weren’t there for it to pass.

After some conciliatory statements from Trump, though, came a flurry of criticism from the president. Trump took to his Twitter account to chastise members of the Freedom Caucus, and vowed instead to work with Democrats to reform the health care system.

Republicans are preparing to head home to their districts for a two-week recess, where they’re sure to face questions from constituents on their failed attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare.

But it’s unlikely the Republican conference will be able to send a health care bill to Trump’s desk before the lawmakers leave for home.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, Ryan told reporters that House Republicans were in the “conceptual stage.”

“It’s important that we don’t just win the votes of one caucus or one group, but that we get the votes and the consensus of 216 of our members,” Ryan, R-Wis., said.

Brat, too, dismissed the notion that the White House’s pitch was a “deal,” but instead said the proposal, alongside other provisions floated by Republican lawmakers, was a “good assembly of ideas.”

“We’re all just waiting to see a combination of policies that bring prices down,” Brat said. “We can all get to yes. We’re just all waiting for various policies and ways of putting it together. You’re managing one-fifth of the economy, so that’s not a small little bill.” (For more from the author of “Conservatives Skeptical of White House’s Proposed Changes to Obamacare Replacement Bill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Border Buildup

/0 Comments/in , /by

The battles over how to pay for President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall are just getting started, but the administration is already calling for proposals from companies who would build it.

The wall is just one part of the White House plan to stop illegal immigrants crossing the southern border. There’s also going to be a hiring spree, with thousands of new Border Patrol agents and immigration officers added to the federal workforce. It’s not the first time this has been tried. I recently heard a cautionary tale from James Tomsheck, former head of internal affairs at Customs and Border Protection.

The following is from my interview with Tomsheck:

Attkisson: What is the potential downside of doing mass hirings all at once?

Tomsheck: I very much hope that those going forward with the initiative look at what we’ve learned when we executed the Border Patrol search of 2006-2008.

Attkisson: How many were hired in that surge?

Tomsheck: More than 10,000 in that period of time. It was done without many of the security protocols that are in place today.

Attkisson narration:

As we reported last year on “Full Measure,” the Border Patrol is a key target for Mexican drug cartels looking to infiltrate the force by getting their own operatives hired and or corrupting agents. The rewards of corruption can be enormous and it’s such a concern, the FBI has about two dozen border corruption task forces dedicated solely to rooting out officers on the take. Officer Michael Gilliland was caught on FBI surveillance video allegedly carrying a cash payoff in a bag. He pleaded guilty to letting in hundreds of illegal immigrants for $120,000 in bribes. Officer Margarita Crispin is serving 10 years for taking bribes to let marijuana through.

Attkisson: Is it accurate to say that drug dealers and drug cartel members were hired as part of the surge inadvertently?

Tomsheck: We certainly believe that to be the case. We do know that in the thousands of polygraph exams that we administered after the background investigation, more than half of those persons that cleared that background investigation failed the polygraph exam and provided detailed admissions as to why it was they failed the exam …

Included in that study group of more than 1,000 were persons who admitted that they were infiltrators, that they actually worked for a drug-trafficking organization, either on the U.S. side of the border or the Mexican side of the border, who had been directed to infiltrate CBP [Customs and Border Protection] and compromise what they do there.

Attkisson narration:

For most of the hiring spree of 2006 to 2008, polygraph exams weren’t required, which alarmed Tomsheck, who previously served in the U.S. Secret Service. He was instrumental in making lie detector tests mandatory for new Border Patrol agents.

Tomsheck: What we found in those first 100-plus exams that we did was genuinely shocking. They had included many persons who were actively involved in smuggling activity. Persons who very frequently used drugs were currently using controlled substances, and included persons involved in significant serious felony crimes.

Attkisson: As a man looking at corruption inside the agency, do you assume in retrospect that the agents were hired despite, perhaps, cartel contacts and other corruption issues?

Tomsheck: Unfortunately, I think it’s a virtual certainty that at least 5 percent of the workforce that was hired during that period of time are likely persons who have engaged in criminal misconduct and likely engaged in acts of corruption. And may have done so before they entered on duty with CBP.

Attkisson: In a sentence or a phrase, your best advice to the Trump administration on this?

Tomsheck: Move very cautiously. If there is a reduction in the security protocols to screen and vet applicants, I believe we will reduce and compromise the agency’s future integrity. (For more from the author of “The Border Buildup” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.