Free Republic

Suggestions to fix Congress by Louisiana's 1st District Representative Bob Livingston.

Surprisingly enough, this well thought out and reasoned opinion piece was actually published in the New York Times.

Read rest here https://archive.ph/ty4fE#selection-305.0-305.44

Good perspective on the Twitter Files and lack of coverage by the MSM.

All Republicans should sue the MSM for in-kind contributions to their opponent. If every Republican (local, state and federal) each filed lawsuits against each MSM outlet, then they could get enough $ to either bankrupt them or to bankroll every Republican candidate.

The other option is, when the Republicans take control, is to pass a law that for every story where a Democrat is quoted or given air time, equal air time MUST be given to a Republican.

Does anyone still listen to Hugh Hewitt?

I stopped listening to him when he was a full-on shill for RINO Mittens Romney.

The MSM is hyper-fixated with the occasional time Epstein was seen with Trump, but, either, ignore or gloss over the NUMEROUS times Bill Clinton hung out with Epstein.

Just goes to show you how the party of "science" is truly clueless, and, actually ignorant of actual science.

Also, Sotomayer has warned the conservative members of letting politics guide their decisions when she, herself, has repeatedly let politics guide her decisions.

If the left didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards.

Actually, the anti-science, pro-abortionists actually believe that life begins at birth (for humans, but no other species). So then the zygote (their inhumane term for an unborn baby) is just an appendage of the women's body that she can choose to do with as she chooses. This is the only way they can justify killing babies.

I will give you 4 examples from today:

1. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing in defense of abortion rights, responded: “It's not the right answer because the court correctly recognized that this is a fundamental right of women, and the nature of fundamental rights is that it's not left up to state legislatures to decide whether to honor them or not.”

2. Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights, representing Mississippi's only abortion clinic, said a legal retreat on abortion rights would “propel women backwards.” “For a state to take control of a woman's body and demand that she go through pregnancy and childbirth with all the physical risks and life-altering consequences that brings is a fundamental deprivation of her liberty,” Ms. Rikelman said.

3. Justice Elena Kagan said “People think it's right or wrong based on the things that they have always thought it was right and wrong for.” The difference, she said, is that “there has been 50 years of water under the bridge” establishing the right to end unwanted pregnancy in “the fabric of women's lives in this country.”

4. Justice Sotomayor said “Will this institution survive the stench this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?”

Ironically, Roe created out of thin air a “right” to abortion, and overturned precedent in a political decision. So now, to correct a wrong decision is considered taking away a Supreme Court created “right” that did not previously exist and would be a political act.

I am dumbfounded by liberals complete and utter lack of forming logical arguments that are applied equally in all cases. Instead only illogical liberals can follow their own twist thinking that picks and chooses when to follow their twisted thinking, such as:
1. Pregnant women are told not to eat this or that, take vitamins, sustain from smoking and drugs in order to protect their unborn child. However, it is perfectly acceptable to murder their own child. Isn't it the women's choice as to what she does with her own body?
2. It is against the law to harm a bald eagle's egg, but fine to murder your unborn baby.
3. No one should tell a woman what to do with her body, except in the case of the Covid-19 vaccine.

Roe has always been an awful decision, a truth long acknowledged even by many who are pro-choice. This was acknowledged too by the three-justice plurality in Casey, when they invoked a Rube Goldberg version of stare decisis to gut the reasoning behind Roe while preserving the outcome. Casey’s contribution was the equally arbitrary “undue burden” standard, whose meaning no one can explain to this day.

The question now is whether, after two incoherent Supreme Court rulings, the justices will stick America with a third out of fear that admitting the constitutional truth about Roe and Casey would damage the court’s legitimacy. Pity no one seems to ask about the harm these same justices will inflict on the Court if they don’t have the integrity to acknowledge what they all know, which is that Roe and Casey were very badly decided.

It bears notice here that since Roe was decided, those who oppose it have played by the rules. They have done the hard work of proposing legislation, compromising to reach a bill that can pass, and then working to get laws enacted by their elected representatives in statehouses around the country. They have diligently worked to elect Republican presidents who campaigned on the promise of nominating Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Constitution instead of legislating from the bench. And they have supported these justices through ugly nomination fights—often at bottom over Roe.

Now pro-lifers have a Supreme Court that may be as good as it gets when it comes to upholding fundamental constitutional principles. If the justices shy away from doing the right thing here, even with the security of their lifetime appointments, a large segment of the American people will conclude that our legal system has been designed to ensure they can never win. Many will become cynical, having concluded that if you play by the rules you will lose to those who don’t. It would be difficult to tell them they are wrong.

Pro-lifers aren’t asking the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion. They understand that in a democratic society, this isn’t the court’s job but the people’s—which they can do only by persuading their fellow citizens of the rightness of their cause. In contrast, the way the pro-choice side gets vapors whenever its adherents believe Roe is at stake suggests they know full well how brittle a holding it is. It also underscores how little they trust their fellow Americans to make these decisions themselves.

If Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett wish to know what pro-lifers expect in return for the support they’ve given them, they will find it nicely summed up in Antonin Scalia’s 2013 dissent in U.S. v. Windsor. There the issue was the Defense of Marriage Act, but the constitutional principle at stake was the same.

“The Court,” Scalia wrote, “has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better.”

This is what’s at stake Wednesday. And on the highly polarized issue of abortion, even those who come down on the pro-choice side ought to cheer for a decision that would, for the first time in 49 years, give us back honest victories and fair defeats.

*** • Enhanced child allowances ($3,600 for children under age 6 and $3,000 up to age 17). This is the bill’s most expensive provision at about $130 billion a year, which is why Democrats limit it to one year. Does anyone doubt they’ll extend it in the future?

They may get help from Republicans, who won’t want to be attacked for raising taxes on families. CRFB says making the allowances permanent would cost $1.13 trillion. Based on current law, it would cost $1.5 trillion since the $2,000 tax credit from the 2017 GOP tax reform is set to drop back to $1,000 after 2025. So that’s nearly $1.4 trillion in hidden costs alone.

• Earned income tax credit expansion. The bill nearly triples the maximum EITC value for childless adults—but only for one year. Its $15 billion annual cost would be $135 billion if extended over the decade. The kicker: Individuals can qualify based on their previous year’s earnings, so they technically don’t have to work to get it.

• ObamaCare premium subsidies. Democrats in March extended eligibility to Americans making more than 400% of the poverty line and capped their premium payments for benchmark plans at 8.5% of income. Subsidies for lower earners were also increased so people making 150% of the poverty line don’t have to pay a penny toward their premiums, compared to 4.1% before the change.

These sweetened subsidies are set to expire after next year, but the bill extends them through 2025 while also allowing lower-income adults in states that opted out of the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion to qualify. CRFB says these subsidies will cost $530 billion if they are made permanent.

• A new child-care entitlement. Households making up to 250% of their state’s median income would qualify for child-care vouchers, and their payments would be capped at 7% of income—less for lower earners. The bill appropriates about $100 billion through 2024 to states and “such sums as may be necessary” from 2025 to 2027.

Spending on this entitlement like all others can be expected to increase on autopilot, especially as providers raise prices to capture more subsidies. States will have to pick up 5% of the cost from 2025 to 2027, which somewhat reduces federal spending but could lead to state tax hikes down the road.

• Universal pre-K. The bill appropriates about $18 billion to states for universal pre-K through 2024 and then “such sums as may be necessary” through 2027. States would be on the hook for about 5% of the cost starting in 2025 and 37% in 2027.

The pre-K and child care entitlements are estimated to cost only $380 billion because they phase in gradually and expire after six years. But there’s zero chance they will expire in 2027. Once the middle-class gets hooked, the entitlements will be impossible to repeal. CRFB estimates the two programs would cost $800 billion if made permanent.

• The current $10,000 limit on the state-and-local tax (SALT) deduction increases to $80,000 through 2030. In 2031 it would return to $10,000. Penn Wharton says this gimmick would lead to $65 billion in additional tax revenue through 2031 though it would cost about $300 billion through 2025. Confused?

Under current law, the $10,000 SALT cap is set to expire in 2025 with most of the 2017 GOP tax cuts. So raising the cap to $80,000 would add to the deficit through 2025 but subtract from it through 2031. This gimmick will make it harder to extend the other expiring provisions of the 2017 tax reform, such as bonus depreciation for business. CRFB says that if the 2017 tax reforms are extended separately, any savings on paper would be erased and replaced with an additional $340 billion in costs.

*** In sum, the House bill will cost $2 trillion to $3 trillion more than CBO is estimating because Democrats have camouflaged the costs. Penn Wharton estimates the bill’s tax increases and other revenue will yield about $1.8 trillion, but this doesn’t account for how the tax hikes will change the incentives to work and invest.

Keep in mind that CBO this summer projected that annual deficits will already exceed $1 trillion on average through 2030, causing U.S. debt to swell by $12.8 trillion—and that’s before the infrastructure bill or this House bill. When the spending all kicks in, and the rich are all taxed out, the middle class will be hit with a huge tax increase. This is the most dishonest spending bill in American history.

Obviously, the Democrat's reconciliation bill is not free and is not paid for.

Just more of the same where people break laws, and get away with it.

Come back to me when people are actually thrown in jail!

Until then, just more of the same...

https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/sys_attachment.do?sysparm_referring_url=tear_off&view=true&sys_id=113eab0b1bb764902dc36311f54bcb42

From the US Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls Charging Letter:

“Honeywell Aerospace's Integrated Supply Chain (ISC) organization sent Request for Quotations (RFQs) to U.S. and foreign suppliers that contained drawings of parts for which suppliers were asked to provide price quotations. ISC personnel generally transfer drawings to suppliers through a file exchange platform called DEXcenter. In December 2015, Honeywell initially disclosed to the Department that it had identified multiple ITAR-controlled drawings that ISC personnel had exported without authorization via DEXcenter to Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (PRC) in July 2015. By March 2017, based on an internal investigation and additional analysis conducted at the Department's request, Honeywell ultimately identified 71 ITAR-controlled drawings that between July 2011 and October 2015 it had exported without authorization via DEXcenter to Canada, Ireland, the PRC, and Taiwan”

“The 71 drawings...contained engineering prints showing layouts, dimensions, and geometries for manufacturing castings and finished parts for multiple aircraft, military electronics, and gas turbine engines, including but not limited to the:
• F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,
• B-1B Lancer Long-Range Strategic Bomber,
• F-22 Fighter Aircraft,
• C-130 Military Transport Aircraft,
• A-7H Corsair Aircraft,
• A-10 Aircraft,
• Apache Longbow Helicopter,
• M1A1 Abrams Tank,
• Tactical Tomahawk Missile, and
• T55 Turboshaft Engine.

“In its September 2016 full voluntary disclosure, Honeywell informed the Department of multiple corrective actions it had taken to prevent the types of violations it disclosed from recurring.”

“In October 2018, Honeywell submitted a second voluntary disclosure describing how personnel in the same organization within Honeywell Aerospace, ISC, committed another series of ITAR violations that were similar to the violations disclosed in the first voluntary disclosure. According to the second voluntary disclosure, a team of U.S. ISC personnel invented what Honeywell referred to as “an alternative process, which the team believed complied with export compliance requirements,” for soliciting RFQs.”

Three key points:
1. Honeywell “fixed” the process. so then employees found a work around to continue to illegally export drawings.
2. Two instances of major violations result in only a $13M fine is a slap on the wrist. How much did Honeywell save by moving the manufacture of these parts from the US to China, Taiwan and Mexico? I bet it was considerably more than only $13M.
3. AND THE KICKER - the head of ISC when these violations occurred was promoted and is now the Honeywell Aerospace President. So crime does pay!

If you lost your job due to Covid, you can get free health insurance for six months starting April 1.

However, what about all of the people who lost their job over the past year who had to pay for COBRA coverage out-of-pocket? Why no love for people before April 1?

From White House, “a paid leave tax credit will offset the cost for businesses and nonprofits with fewer than 500 employees for up to 80 hours (i.e. 10 work days) up to $511 per day of paid sick leave offered between April 1 and September 30, 2021. This tax credit will allow these employers to provide paid leave for employees to get a COVID-19 vaccination and for any time their employees may need to recover from that vaccination at no cost to the employer.”

This leaves out anyone who received the vaccine before April 1.

Most of the jurors had seen the video which led to a them having a negative view of Chauvin. Given this, and how quickly the jury reached a verdict, seems like the verdict was pre-determined and didn’t matter what was presented in the court room.

“Mr. Murray hired Louise Story, a journalist whose career included a decade at The New York Times.”
“We also strongly recommend putting muscle behind efforts to feature more women and people of color in all of our stories.”

So, basically, Louise Story recommended turning the Wall Street Journal into the NY Times.

This seems like a great approach to chase off the remaining WSJ subscribers.

I occasionally read the WSJ Opinion section to read articles I can’t find elsewhere. If I wanted a NY Times-like editorial, I can just read that in just about every other newspaper/media site.

Louise Story’s Content Team is trying to destroy the only thing that separates the WSJ from every other newspaper in this country.

By this logic, if prosecuting someone for a crime, doesn’t “right” the crime, then let’s do away with all police, prosecutors, judges, lawyers, judicial branch, and, why not, let’s throw in the legislative branch since no one will bother to enforce the laws they write.

In fact, we should just get rid of 90%+ of all government employees since nothing they do can fix anything (/s).

So all of this occurred over 4 years ago, and what was the result of the misleading of the FISA court and illegal spying on Americans? NOTHING!

Our FBI and DOJ have become so partisan that nothing happens to a Democrat or liberal (look at the riots this summer, when someone was arrested, the judge just let them go), but when it is a Republican or conservative, the FBI uses all of their resources and throws the book at them. Then the Democrats quickly hold hearings and investigations.

So why is it that only Democrats can act quickly and get results? When the Republicans were in charge, they held hearings that turned into nothingburgers. Are all Republicans spineless wimps?

Interesting that Pfizer, Moderna and CDC are not following the science by insisting on giving two doses of the Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccine.

In order to more quickly protect people against Covid, the UK and, I believe, Europe are prioritizing giving the first dose to wider segment of the population before giving the second dose.

In fact, AstraZeneca has said the second dose of their vaccine is most effective when given 120-days after the first. Pfizer and Moderna have not done any studies of the best time to give the second dose, so they can't definitely say that giving the second dose 21-days after the first is the MOST effective protocol.