To Debate or Not to Debate

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

Televised presidential debates first started with the 1960 presidential contest between John Kennedy and Ricard Nixon. It is generally believed that the debate process helped Kennedy and harmed Nixon. Debates during subsequent presidential races have had varying impact on the outcome of the races. The Biden regime’s surprise request to hold two debates with Donald Trump raises some questions.

First, the request for debates came on the heels of the most recent polls showing that Trump has a significant lead in key swing states and is gaining support with minorities, whose support the Democrats have always taken for granted. Is this just a coincidence? I think not. The Biden regime must believe that debates can be used to reverse Trump’s lead in the polls. Given Biden’s obvious lack of mental acuity, this is quite surprising and raises the question about who will control the debates and whether they can be stacked against Donald Trump. Let’s look at the how the debates will be conducted.

The channels selected to hold the debates at this time are CNN and ABC. Members of what Trump calls the “Fake Media.” So too with the moderators. CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash are notoriously anti-Trump, as are likely ABCs moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis. The fact that first debate will be held on June 27th before either candidate has actually secured their party’s nomination is suspicious and has never been done before. Perhaps, if Biden performs very poorly, the Democrats can use that as another reason not to nominate him at their convention. If that happens, Trump may find himself having to debate a yet unknown candidate one or more times, closer to the election. The Biden regime is also requiring that there will be no live audience to react to the candidates remarks during the debate. Surely they do not want to have to deal with applause for Donald Trump during the televised debates. Another restriction is that the candidates’ microphones can be turned off by the moderators to prevent comments from the candidates from being broadcast. In the 2016 debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it was subsequently revealed that Hillary Clinton had been given the questions before the debate.

Trump’s ability to outshine Biden in any fairly run debate is not in question. However, given the Democrat’s track record and their desperation over the recent polls, they will make every effort to sway the debate in Biden’s favor. Here are some reasonable requirements that Trump should demand before final agreement on the debates: (1) Debates should not occur until both candidates have been officially nominated; (2)There must be balance as to the networks broadcasting the debates. CNN should be replaced by NewsMax, preferably, or FOX News (3) Both candidates should be given the main questions they will be asked by the moderators, which is the only way of preventing only one candidate getting the questions and the other not. (4) Candidates should be allowed to ask questions of each other. (5) A non-selected audience should be allowed. (6) Both candidates should be required to take a drug test.

It is all very well, and admirable of Trump to agree to debate Biden “any time, any place” as he has said. However, he is ahead in the polls and must ensure that any debate is fair to both candidates. Otherwise, he may be jeopardizing his campaign by making himself vulnerable to his unscrupulous opponent. There is an old saying “The Pride before the Fall.” Trump should heed this truthful admonition!

 

Bait And Switch By The Democrats

On Sunday, Fox News posted an article about the aid to Israel that the United States has promised. Remember when the Republicans were told that they had to pass the horrendous aid to Ukraine bill in order to get aid to Israel? Well, we have been fooled again.

The article reports:

The Biden administration has put a hold on a shipment of U.S.-manufactured ammunition to Israel for the first time since the deadly Oct. 7 Hamas terror attack, according to a report.

Two Israeli officials told Axios that the weapons shipment was stopped last week, leaving officials within the Israeli government scrambling to understand why.

When asked about the report, a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council told Fox News Digital that it has supported Israel’s defense since the Oct. 7 attack.

Remember that after October 7th, the Biden administration requested that Israel’s response be ‘proportional.’ As I have previously asked, exactly what is the correct proportional response to killing innocent civilians at a music festival, raping women, mutilating bodies and taking hostages?

Are we supposed to let Hamas regroup and do another October 7th-style attack?

Is There Anyone Honestly Doing Their Job In Washington?

On Friday, The Federalist posted an article about fprmer National Intelligence Council analyst Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella was the person who triggered the first impeachment of President Trump. It has recently come to light that Mr. Ciaramella was equally aware of the Ukrainian corruption involving the Biden family.

The article reports:

The “whistleblower” who sparked Donald Trump’s first impeachment was deeply involved in the political maneuverings behind Biden-family business schemes in Ukraine that Trump wanted probed, newly obtained emails from former Vice President Joe Biden’s office reveal.

In 2019, then-National Intelligence Council analyst Eric Ciaramella touched off a political firestorm when he anonymously accused Trump of linking military aid for Ukraine to a demand for an investigation into alleged Biden corruption in that country.

But four years earlier, while working as a national security analyst attached to then-Vice President Joe Biden’s office, Ciaramella was a close adviser when Biden threatened to cut off U.S. aid to Ukraine unless it fired its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Ukraine-based Burisma Holdings. At the time, the corruption-riddled energy giant was paying Biden’s son Hunter millions of dollars.

Those payments — along with other evidence tying Joe Biden to his family’s business dealings — received little attention in 2019 as Ciaramella accused Trump of a corrupt quid pro quo. Neither did subsequent evidence indicating that Hunter Biden’s associates had identified Shokin as a “key target.” These matters are now part of the House impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

It’s interesting that his conscience only required him to object to President Trump’s questioning the corruption in Ukraine.

The article concludes:

A spokeswoman for the House Oversight Committee, which is leading the Biden impeachment inquiry, declined to say whether Ciaramella is on the witness list. “I don’t have anything for you on this at this time,” said House Oversight Communications Director Jessica Collins. However, Comer has publicly described the “whistleblower” impeachment of Trump as a “cover-up” operation for the alleged Biden blackmail scheme in Ukraine involving U.S. aid and the Burisma corruption probe.

What Ciaramella witnessed and what he documented in notes he took during high-level Biden-Ukraine meetings could now be relevant to the active impeachment inquiry of President Biden. The House may have little choice but to hold the kind of hearings the Democrats blocked during the earlier impeachment by keeping Ciaramella’s identity — and his own potential conflict — secret.

As the catalyst for Trump’s impeachment, Ciaramella could now be a reluctant witness for Biden’s.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It provides a lot of insight to the lawfare that President Trump has had to deal with since he walked down the elevator in 2015.

Moving In The Wrong Direction Rather Than Solving The Problem

Antisemitism is currently a problem in America and around the world. It isn’t something that can be fixed by laws, although Congress is trying. Censorship of free speech is NOT the answer.

On Thursday, The Daily Caller reported the following:

The Democratic Party is engaged in civil war over the Israel-Gaza conflict, and Republicans can’t help but take a bullet for their supposed political enemies.

It comes in the form of H.R. 6090, a freshly-passed bill by the U.S. House of Representatives aimed at curbing antisemitism on university campuses. Antisemitism on American soil has indeed grown loudly since the Oct. 7 attack in Israel. However, House Speaker Mike Johnson has been unable to step aside and allow Democrats to expose themselves as radicals on the issue. Instead, he’s held multiple press conferences, including one where he was drowned out by protestors on the Columbia University campus, putting an unnecessary bullseye on the Republican party.

…Johnson’s apparent belief that tackling antisemitism is the key to uniting the GOP is doing the exact opposite. Sources in both chambers of Congress told the Daily Caller that members are frustrated with Johnson’s handling of H.R. 6090, known as the Antisemitism Awareness Act, and the target that’s now on their backs.

The dilemma, multiple GOP aides told the Caller: either back down on free speech, or be slandered as an “antisemite.”

“This botched antisemitism resolution is just the cherry on top of the crap sundae Mike Johnson has served Congressional Republicans for six months,” one senior GOP Senate aide told the Caller. “Whether through incompetence or malice, he is a worthy successor to Nancy Pelosi.”

The article notes:

“The Antisemitism Awareness Act will require, through the Department of Education, which has enforcement authority, institutions to crack down constitutionally protected speech. The Antisemitism Awareness Act, however well intended to provide institutions with more tools to address antisemitism on campuses, is overbroad and unconstitutional because it polices constitutionally protected speech,” lead counsel of government affairs for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Tyler Coward, told the Daily Caller.

Anti-Semitic speech is not a good thing–but it is protected by the First Amendment. In truth, we need to change people’s hearts. Limiting what people can say is not a step forward.

Does Lawfare Work?

On Tuesday, The Conservative Review posted an article about the possible impact of the trial of President Trump in New York. Based on what I know of the charges, the trial is frightening because it illustrates how an overzealous justice department can put anyone on trial for anything. Is the jury aware that Congress has a specific fund to deal with allegations of a sexual nature against Congressmen?

In 2017, CNN reported:

So far, there’s been little specific data to help illuminate just how pervasive sexual harassment is on Capitol Hill, but one figure has emerged: the total that the Office of Compliance, the office that handles harassment complaints, has paid to victims.

On Thursday, the Office of Compliance released additional information indicating that it has paid victims more than $17 million since its creation in the 1990s. That includes all settlements, not just related to sexual harassment, but also discrimination and other cases.

So are we going to arrest whoever disburses the money?

The article at The Conservative Review reports:

On Monday, trial arguments began in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against the former president. Trump is accused of falsifying business records related to payments made to Stormy Daniels. The trial is expected to take weeks, which means Trump’s ability to campaign is severely hampered. President Joe Biden, meanwhile, is ramping up his campaigning.

That juxtaposition — Trump in a courtroom versus Biden on the campaign trail — could help Trump, Turley predicted.

“This is becoming the split-screen election,” the law professor said on Fox News. “Earlier it was pretty damaging to see the split screen between Trump in different courtrooms. This is even more effective when the other side of the screen shows Biden campaigning in key states like Pennsylvania while [Trump’s] held in this courtroom.

The article at The Conservative Review concludes:

“Keep in mind: this is what Hillary Clinton’s people did,” he pointed out. “Remember, when they funded the Steele dossier — which they denied to reporters — they put it as a legal expense. And then they fought the eventual fine they received from the federal government saying, ‘But it was a legal expense.’ Now you’ve got some of the same Democrats supporting this bizarre theory.”

Turley, moreover, agreed there is credence to the narrative that Bragg’s case is “coordinated” with the Justice Department, owing to the fact that Michael Colangelo, who once worked in the Biden DOJ, helped present opening arguments on Monday.

It’s only illegal when Republicans do it!

Who Is Paying For The Protests?

It is no secret that George Soros has been working to destabilize and destroy America for some time now. Unfortunately, many of our politicians are working with him. One path to destabilization is to fund continuing protests, causing people to feel unsafe. Look around.

On Monday, Front Page Magazine posted an article about how George Soros is spending some of his money.

The article reports:

The Soros clan has been accused of providing an estimated $15 million to the pro-terrorist groups storming cities in support of Hamas, and an estimated $758,000 already to Biden.

Both of those are only partial estimates of much larger spending by the family of radical billionaires which have simultaneously been funding the anti-Israel movement, trojan horse Jewish groups and the Democratic Party politicians whom they are busy pressuring.

No accounting of Sen. Schumer’s infamous speech attacking Israel can overlook the fact that Alex Soros, the son of the elderly former Nazi collaborator who has defended Hamas, has met at least nine times with Sen. Schumer and called him “his good friend”. The younger Soros has continued meeting with Senate Dem candidates on whose victory Schumer’s Senate Majority Leader role depends.

The outside game of pressure campaigns, street blockades and violent attacks in the streets may get more attention, but is subsidiary to the inside game mastered by the Soros family.

$60 million has been pumped from the Soros network into its own Democracy PAC to help Democrats win. Millions from that PAC have gone to the Democratic Party’s Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC. And so when the Soros clan speaks, top House and Senate Democrats like Sen. Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries listen closely and then take action.

Unfortunately, George Soros has been an American citizen since 1961, and it would be difficult to revoke his citizenship and kick him out of the country (although it might be worth a try). It is sad that someone who wants to destroy America can find allies in our government.

The article concludes:

On August 7th, months before the Hamas attacks, Alex Soros co-signed a letter falsely accusing the “current Israeli government” of a “campaign is so severe and so consequential that it merits a proportionate reaction by Israel’s chief ally, the United States of America” such as voting against Israel at the UN and other ways of undermining the Jewish State.

Despite the attacks of Oct 7, all 7 of the demands for actions against Israel were either enacted, moved forward or otherwise entered consideration by the Biden administration.

While the pro-Hamas mobs may condemn the Biden administration, both ‘Genocide Joe’ and the Hamas supporters share a common anti-Israel agenda and a common funding source.

The difference between the inside and the outside game, lies in the facades. What’s the real difference between Biden and Hamas supporters? Appearance. The combination of internal and external pressures, mob violence and massive checks, is a campaign of total warfare against Israel that is designed to appear as if it were coming from many diverse voices.

But behind many of the facades lies one agenda.

The Soros family needs to leave America.

Be Careful How Much You Skim

On Sunday, Zero Hedge posted an article with the following headline:

Ukraine Gets Their Billions Despite CIA Director Reportedly Warning Zelenksy To Stop Stealing So Much Money

I think this comes under the heading “You can’t make this stuff up.” Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked an audit of how money sent to Ukraine is spent, so Americans really have no idea where their tax dollars are going.

The article reports:

As Seymour Hersh recently reported, CIA Director Burns had to warn Zelensky to stop stealing so much money.

The issue of corruption was directly raised with Zelensky in a meeting last January in Kiev with CIA Director William Burns.

His message to the Ukrainian president, I was told by an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the meeting, was out of a 1950s mob movie.

The senior generals and government officials in Kiev were angry at what they saw as Zelensky’s greed, so Burns told the Ukrainian president, because “he was taking a larger share of the skim money than was going to the generals.”

Burns also presented Zelensky with a list of thirty-five generals and senior officials whose corruption was known to the CIA and others in the American government.

Zelensky responded to the American pressure ten days later by publicly dismissing ten of the most ostentatious officials on the list and doing little else.

“The ten he got rid of were brazenly bragging about the money they had—driving around Kiev in their new Mercedes,”the intelligence official told me.

Zelensky’s half-hearted response and the White House’s lack of concern was seen, the intelligence official added, as another sign of a lack of leadership that is leading to a “total breakdown” of trust between the White House and some elements of the intelligence community.

The article concludes

But, remember, the first rule of sending money to corrupt Ukraine is… you don’t talk about how corrupt Ukraine is (or you get impeached).

 

Listening To The People

I recently posted three articles (here, here, and here) about the renewal of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Section 702. Note that the law is called “foreign intelligence surveillance” act–not the spying on your political opponents act. Unfortunately the act has been used 278,000 times to conduct illegal searches on Americans. That is why I oppose the renewal of Section 702.

On Wednesday, The Hill reported:

A group of House Republicans on Wednesday tanked a procedural vote to begin debate on a bill to reauthorize the nation’s warrantless surveillance powers, leaving the chamber scrambling on how to address the important spy tool before it expires next week.

Nineteen Republicans joined Democrats in voting against a rule for legislation to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), blocking the measure from advancing 193-228.

The move comes after former President Trump on Wednesday urged Republicans to “KILL FISA” — throwing a wrench in an already contentious debate.

The failed vote marks yet another instance of members of the GOP tanking what is typically a routine party-line vote to protest legislation put forward by leadership.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, The Hill is part of the Operation Mockingbird media. The public has also urged Congress to kill FISA, but the author of the article chooses to overlook that.

On Wednesday, The Hill also reported:

Former Attorney General Bill Barr on Wednesday denounced former President Trump’s exhortation for Congress to kill the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as “crazy and reckless” and warned there will be “blood on people’s hands” if the intelligence community’s surveillance authority expires and there’s a terrorist attack on the United States.

Barr, who served in Trump’s Cabinet in 2019 and 2020, noted that Trump at one time supported the expanded surveillance powers authorized under Section 702 of FISA and warned that political “posturing” against extending that authority would be dangerous to national security.

“I think it’s crazy and reckless to not move forward with FISA. It’s our principal tool protecting us from terrorist attacks. We’re living through a time where those threats have never been higher, so it’s blinding us, it’s blinding our allies,” Barr told The Hill in an interview.

You mean those allies that aided in the Russia Hoax?

Section 702 is a step toward a government that can surveil its political opponents without any limitations. They don’t need a warrant and the people surveilled don’t have to know they are being watched. That is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which states:

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Bill Barr is a lawyer. He is supposed to know the U.S. Constitution.

This Is A Reminder

This is another reminder that Section 702 needs to be unauthorized instead of approved by April 19.

On Monday, Just the News posted the following:

Conservative lawmakers are calling for an end to warrantless surveillance of Americans ahead of a House floor vote on Wednesday to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The bill, titled the “Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act,” would extend section 702 of FISA, which “authorizes the targeted collection of foreign intelligence information from non-U.S. persons located abroad,” according to the FBI.

Conservative Republicans and some Democrats such as Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, have teamed up to push for a warrant requirement as a condition for reauthorizing FISA. However, the legislation up for a vote on Wednesday does not include a warrant requirement in its current form. 

“No matter how hard the deep state cries, Congress must NOT reauthorize FISA 702 without requiring a warrant to search U.S. citizens,” wrote Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, on X.

“The SAFE Act contains a warrant requirement, the Lee-Leahy reforms, language ensuring that our Fourth Amendment rights can’t be bought and sold, and a handful of other protections necessary to protect Americans’ privacy,” he also wrote.

The article concludes:

The Brennan Center for Justice and other organizations wrote a letter on April 5 urging lawmakers to vote in favor of amendments to the bill up for a vote that will require a warrant.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, a proponent of the legislation up for a vote on Wednesday, predicted the bill will pass.

“I think it will,” Turner said Sunday on CNN. “I think that those who mischaracterize this are small compared to those who understand that this goes to the heart of our ability to get intelligence. It allows us to be able to keep Americans safe. This is not a warrantless surveillance of Americans.”

Biggs argued that the bill Turner supports is “very modest, very incremental” and does not contain significant reforms to Section 702.

“Quite frankly, it’s going to be who’s watching the henhouse. It’s going to be the FBI still watching the henhouse,” he said. 

It has become obvious that the people in charge cannot be trusted with warrantless surveillance. Let’s not give them the right to do warrantless surveillance.

The Sad Demise Of National Public Radio (NPR)

On Tuesday, Uri Berliner posted an article at The Free Press about his years at National Public Radio (NPR). The article states that the far-left worldview at NPR has not always been there–in recent years it has developed and gotten worse.

The article reports:

Back in 2011, although NPR’s audience tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty-six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, 23 percent as middle of the road, and 37 percent as liberal.

By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals. 

An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America. 

That wouldn’t be a problem for an openly polemical news outlet serving a niche audience. But for NPR, which purports to consider all things, it’s devastating both for its journalism and its business model. 

The article notes the coverage of the Russia Hoax:

Persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election became the catnip that drove reporting. At NPR, we hitched our wagon to Trump’s most visible antagonist, Representative Adam Schiff. 

Schiff, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, became NPR’s guiding hand, its ever-present muse. By my count, NPR hosts interviewed Schiff 25 times about Trump and Russia. During many of those conversations, Schiff alluded to purported evidence of collusion. The Schiff talking points became the drumbeat of NPR news reports.

But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming. 

The article also mentions Hunter Biden’s laptop:

In October 2020, the New York Post published the explosive report about the laptop Hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware computer shop containing emails about his sordid business dealings. With the election only weeks away, NPR turned a blind eye. Here’s how NPR’s managing editor for news at the time explained the thinking: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” 

But it wasn’t a pure distraction, or a product of Russian disinformation, as dozens of former and current intelligence officials suggested. The laptop did belong to Hunter Biden. Its contents revealed his connection to the corrupt world of multimillion-dollar influence peddling and its possible implications for his father.

The laptop was newsworthy. But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump. 

The article also mentions the political affiliations of the editorial staff at NPR:

So on May 3, 2021, I presented the findings at an all-hands editorial staff meeting. When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasn’t hostile. It was worse. It was met with profound indifference. I got a few messages from surprised, curious colleagues. But the messages were of the “oh wow, that’s weird” variety, as if the lopsided tally was a random anomaly rather than a critical failure of our diversity North Star. 

Please follow the link above to read the entire story. It’s a sad saga of failing to hold to journalistic principles. Unfortunately, we support this slanted media with our tax dollars.

The Real Threat to Our Democracy

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

As usual, the Democrat left is lying to the American people. Truth is not something that they believe in. This has been the case with every communist/Marxist government in world history. The latest of many examples is the Biden regime’s claim that Donald Trump is the biggest threat to our democracy. As usual, they do not even recognize that we are a constitutional Republic–not a democracy. Let’s see where the real threat is coming from.

In a very revealing interview on CNN, Robert Kennedy, Jr., a third party candidate for the presidency (and an extreme leftist himself, especially on the environment), was asked who was the greatest threat to democracy, Donald Trump or Joe Biden. To the shock and chagrin of the CNN interviewer, Kennedy answered that it was Joe Biden. He went on to explain how his free speech was taken away by the Biden regime through social media banning which he has had to fight in court. He has also been denied Secret Service protection which under previous administrations, would have been routinely granted. Especially in his case where both his father (Robert) and his uncle (John) were both assassinated. Leaving him at risk would be one way of Biden eliminating an opponent.

Inviting illegal aliens into our country and granting them free support including airfares directly into our country are the biggest threat to our country at this time. Not only does the Biden regime invite them in, they make every effort to block Texas from sealing their border, including court actions. A country without borders cannot long exist. Free speech is an essential part of any free country. The first thing Hitler did when taking over the government of Germany was to forbid speech in opposition to his regime. He then constituted a federal police force (the SS) to arrest and incarcerate anyone who voiced opposition to his regime. Sound familiar? Look how the Biden regime is misusing the FBI and the Department of (In)Justice to go after Trump supporters, branding them as MAGA terrorists. Sending fully armed squads of FBI agents to arrest your political opponents and their supporters has never been seen in this country before the Biden regime took over. How about the coordinated campaign of bringing bogus charges and court cases against your political opponent, as Biden has done to Donald Trump? Also, the Democrat Marxists efforts to steal elections by the wholesale use of mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting. No free country can exist without free and fair elections and citizen’s confidence in the election process. The final example is Biden’s continuing effort to grant forgiveness of student loans, which he hopes will buy him votes, in spite of the fact that the courts have declared that he has no constitutional authority to do so. He just ignores the courts.

Well, you get the point. If Biden and the Marxist Democrats succeed in winning this coming election, our country is doomed to follow other communist regimes that have destroyed the freedoms and liberty of their people. We must not let this happen. If we do, we will have not only failed ourselves but our children and grandchildren. Get out and resist before it is too late!

Exactly Who Does Congress Represent?

On Wednesday, Issues & Insights posted the results of a Scott Rasmussen poll.

The article reports:

Among all Americans, just 7% said they would want their candidate to win by cheating. As Rasmussen put it, he’d rather see that number lower, but that’s not bad.

But more than a third of the elite 1% he surveyed would condone cheating. And among those who are “politically obsessed” – meaning that they talk about politics every day – that number shot up to 69%.

Keep in mind that this elite 1% group is overwhelmingly liberal. According to Rasmussen, these are mainly well-educated urbanites who make more than $150,000 a year and think Joe Biden is doing a great job. Nearly three-quarters identify as Democrats.

They are also highly influential when it comes to policy, and they are completely out of touch with everyday Americans. A few examples from the survey:

    • Nearly 60% say there is too much individual freedom in America – double the rate of all Americans.
    • More than two-thirds (67%) favor rationing of energy and food to combat the threat of “climate change.”
    • Nearly three-quarters (70%) of the elites trust the government to “do the right thing most of the time.”
    • More than two-thirds (67%) say teachers and other educational professionals should decide what children are taught rather than letting parents decide.
    • Nearly three-quarters (74%) say they are financially better off than before COVID, compared with 20% of the general public.

These elites are also the people who are constantly wailing and gnashing their teeth about how Donald Trump is a “grave threat to democracy.” You can’t turn on the television, open a newspaper, or go to any mainstream news site without being warned that “democracy is on the ballot this November,” or told that Trump is a wannabe dictator, his followers semi-fascists, blah, blah, blah.

Yet most of these same elites would be happy to see Biden and the Democratic Party rob and cheat to steal an election rather than let Trump win a second term in office.

It is time Americans elected people who actually represent them. Our current elected officials clearly represent only a small minority of the people. All of us need to get involved in primary elections to change this–until we change the candidates, we won’t change the results.

Misplaced Priorities

On Monday, The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about plans to turn the  the former Chelsea Soldiers’ Home facility into a migrant shelter. The building has been vacant and scheduled for demolition, but the state now plans to re-open it beginning May 1.

The article reports:

Democrat Governor Maura Healey revealed the government will turn the former Chelsea Soldiers’ Home facility, which is vacant and scheduled for demolition, into a safety-net site in April.

It will be able to accommodate 100 families who are eligible for the state’s Emergency Assistance family shelter system, which has been operating at capacity for months. 

Residents of the Bay State, however, are furious that the former veteran housing facility is being turned into migrant shelter when on a single night in 2023 there were 545 veterans experiencing homelessness in Massachusetts, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Local Dick McGrath said on Facebook: ‘Is it me, or is there something wrong with putting migrants in the Chelsea Soldiers Home instead of homeless veterans?’

The article also notes:

Mike Junior said: ‘They were supposed to tear that building down but let’s put migrants in there, not our own soldiers, not our own people, not the ones who FOUGHT for OUR FREEDOM.’

Blake Habyan said on Twitter: ‘Illegals are being prioritized over American citizens. Who will they take away from next?’

Secretary of Veterans Services Dr. Jon Santiago insisted transforming the site will not affect services for veterans. 

Massachusetts has proven that we can take care of veterans and families experiencing homelessness in our state,’ said Santiago.

‘While EOVS formerly operated the building slated for demolition, this project operates independently and will not impact the daily routines or services at the Massachusetts Veterans Home at Chelsea.’

Wait a minute. How can transforming the site not impact services for veterans? If there are more than 500 homeless veterans in Massachusetts on one night, why isn’t the building being put to use for them? It will impact the daily routines or services at the Massachusetts Veterans Home at Chelsea because the migrants are not vetted in any way and there will be safety concerns.

I Went To Biden Mart

I went to Biden Mart to see how much my grocery bill has changed during the Biden administration.

This is what I found:

Obviously that’s not my whole grocery bill, but you get the picture. Anyone who has shopped for groceries in the past three years probably has a similar result. I personally cannot afford four more years of Joe Biden or whoever the Democrats sneak into his place while he’s eating ice cream.

The Stealing Begins

There are a lot of ways to steal an election–you can do it electronically, you can do it with mail-in ballots, you can do it with basic voter fraud, or you can be subtle and do it by going in to places that you know will vote the way you want them to and paying people to register those voters and get them to the polls. Right now, that is the preferred method.

On Saturday, The Federalist reported:

With a little over seven months until Election Day, “Bidenbucks” are ramping up where Team Biden’s sweeping taxpayer-funded get-out-the-vote order is most needed. Meanwhile, a federal judge has stopped a Bidenbucks complaint described as “the MOST important election integrity lawsuit in the country.”

The Michigan Department of State recently announced a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Small Business Administration “to promote civic engagement and voter registration in Michigan.” The agreement, according to Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and SBA Administrator Isabel Casillas Guzman is a “first-of-its-kind collaboration” for the federal agency. It is expected to run through Jan. 1, 2036. That is, if legal challenges can’t stop the apparently unconstitutional “understanding.” 

“Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. Like voting, they play a direct role in improving people’s lives,” the swing state’s leftist secretary of state, who fancies herself as a defender of democracy, said in a press release. “I’m proud we are working with the Small Business Administration for this first-in-the-nation effort connecting Michigan’s small business community with the tools and information they need to play an even greater active role in our democracy.” 

First of all, we are a representative republic–not a democracy.

The article concludes:

“…Plaintiffs have alleged only an institutional injury resulting from ‘a general loss of legislative power,’” the judge wrote in her decision. “A vague, generalized allegation that elections, generally, will be undermined, is not the type of case or controversy that this court may rule on under Article III.” 

But there’s nothing vague or generalized about the effects of Biden’s voter registration executive order that serves as a federal government-funded GOTV campaign for Democrats. 

As the lawsuit notes, the executive fiat requires all federal agencies to “identify and partner with specified partisan third party organizations,” “distribute voter registration and vote-by-mail ballot application forms,” “assist applicants in completing voter registration and vote-by-mail ballot application forms,” and “solicit third-party organizations.” It also “directs state officials to provide voter registration services on agency premises.” 

All of it is being done without congressional approval or appropriation. Meanwhile, the Biden administration refuses to release records on the initiative, raising the question: What does Team Biden have to hide? 

There will be more of this activity as November approaches.

 

Unfolding Before Our Eyes

On Monday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the use of the legal system against President Trump.

The article reports:

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said Monday that the “improvisational” nature of the cases against former President Donald Trump caused damage to the image of the legal system and proved Trump was “right” about being targeted by a “weaponized” justice system.

Trump’s attorneys said Monday the former president was having difficulty posting a $454 million bond to cover the judgment in a civil fraud case issued by New York Judge Arthur Engoron in February. Turley said that the cases brought by Democratic Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, special counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis proved Trump’s allegations that he was being targeted correct. 

“It’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny that we have a legal system now that is being heavily distorted by politics and you cannot look at all of these cases and see blind justice, you see the opposite,” Turley told Fox Business host Larry Kudlow, a former Trump administration official. “You see a justice that is being weaponized, and in many ways the Democrats fulfill the narrative of President Trump. He is now right. No matter what they thought about it at the beginning, they proved him to be right with this pile-on from Florida to Georgia, to Washington, D.C., to New York and most of the public gets it.”

The article concludes:

“I mean we have to wait to see if New York still has a judge or two that’s willing to say enough,” Turley continued. “When you are forcing someone to come up with half a billion dollars just to get an appeal? Someone has to say enough. This is not what New York is supposed to be.”

If we want to see our justice system restored back to equal justice under the law, we are going to have to elect people who are willing to follow the law. Please keep that in mind when you vote in primary elections and in November.

 

Remember When Patriots Ran Congress?

On Tuesday, The Federalist posted an article about a recent vote taken in the Senate.

The article reports:

None of Democrats’ witnesses in a congressional hearing Tuesday could say resolutely that they believe only citizens should be able to vote in a federal election.

During a Senate Judiciary Hearing on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee asked the witnesses to provide a basic “yes” or “no” answer to a series of questions about non-citizens voting.

“Do you believe that only citizens of the United States should be able to vote in federal elections?” Lee asked each of the witnesses.

“We don’t have a position about non-citizens voting in federal elections, we believe that’s what the current laws are, and so we’re certainly fighting for everyone who is eligible under current law to vote,” Executive Director of The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Damon T. Hewitt said.

“That’s a decision of the state law but I want to emphasize –” President of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project Lydia Camarillo said.

“It’s a decision of state law as to who should vote in federal elections?” Lee interjected.

“States decide who gets to vote in various elections, and in federal elections I believe that we should be encouraging people to naturalize and then vote,” Camarillo said.

“Okay but you’re saying that the federal government should have no say in who votes in a federal election?” Lee pressed.

“I don’t have a position on that,” Camarillo responded.

The article concludes:

The John Lewis Voting Rights Act seeks to federalize all elections by stripping states and local jurisdictions from making changes to their elections without approval from federal bureaucrats. If the legislation is passed, the U.S. Justice Department could essentially take over an election if its left-wing allies claim minority voters are being harmed by something as simple as requiring an ID or proving citizenship to vote.

A federal judge recently ruled Arizona’s law requiring individuals to prove U.S. citizenship in order to vote in a statewide election is not discriminatory and could proceed after leftists lodged a series of suits.

“Arizona’s interests in preventing non-citizens from voting and promoting public confidence in Arizona’s elections outweighs the limited burden voters might encounter when required to provide” proof of citizenship, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.

The potential for mischief under the John Lewis Voting Rights Act is endless. Just for the record, there is no reason for non-citizens to vote in American elections–they have no skin in the game. If things go bad in America, they can simply go home.

How Long Can This Continue?

On Sunday, Clarice Feldman posted an article at the American Thinker about our rapidly disintegrating President.

The article notes:

A day after his pumped-up divisive State of the Union address, unsurprisingly headlined “fiery” by the copycat media lackeys, President Biden, speaking in Pennsylvania, reverted to his old befuddled self.

“Pennsylvania, I have a message for you: send me to Congress!” 

“Last night [at] the U.S. Capitol — the same building where our freedoms came under assault on July the 6th!”

“We added more to the national debt than any president in his term in all of history!”

Some Americans believe that the senility and dementia are an act. I don’t agree, but I think it would probably be better if it were.

The article continues:

Well, the last statement is true. I’ll give him that. And large budget deficits are a pattern in Democrat-run cities and states. Democrats pay off cronies and constituencies with government money and then raise your taxes because they’ve spent more than they were able to squeeze out of the economy.

Nearest to me, that pattern is evident in Maryland and Washington, D.C.: They look the other way at rising crime because they defunded the police and decriminalized conduct and then bemoan empty purses as people and businesses flee. They locked down their states and were surprised to learn that capped the revenue spigot. They made ridiculous, frivolous expenditures like bike lanes and street cars and painting BLM on a major street and then can’t pay for necessities like cops, road repairs, and schools.

The article concludes with a list of some of the accomplishments of Calvin Coolidge and some of the things that happened under his watch:

Without government interference, private enterprise quickly electrified the country and created a transportation revolution as more Americans could drive their new automobiles.

Average earnings rose 30 percent in a decade. Gross domestic product (GDP) rose by a third… This great economic and lifestyle revolution for Americans of modest means happened with basically no guidance from the federal government. The government largely stayed out of the way. 

We can dream, can’t we?

It really is time for a change.

Changing The Rules

On Friday, Victor Davis Hanson posted an article at The New York Post detailing how the Democrat party has changed some of the basic rules of our Republic in recent years. It’s a long list.

Here are the highlights of the list:

1. When in control of the Senate, demand the end of the filibuster; when not, don’t.

2. Call for the end of the Electoral College — but only if it appears to recently favor the candidate of the opposition.

3. In an election year, change any state balloting laws deemed unhelpful through administrative fiat or court order to favor your political candidate.

4. Seek to flip electors from voting in accordance with the popular vote count in their states; indict as an insurrectionist any of the opposition who dare do the same.

5. Raid the home of any opposition ex-president who removed classified files; exempt any sitting president of your party who did the same.

6. Swarm the private homes of, and then bully and intimidate, any Supreme Court officials, politicians or citizens you oppose.

7. Appoint two special counsels: one to go after the current chief presidential opponent in an election year; the other to exempt and excuse the sitting president for the very crimes charged against his rival.

8. Lobby to remove any oppositional president through the 25th Amendment; smear anyone as ageist who suggests a cognitively challenged sitting resident of your party should be subject to similar invocations of the 25th Amendment.

9. Exempt thousands of arrested rioters from charges of 120 days of arson, looting, injuring 1,500 law enforcement officers, and assault — but only if they are radical supporters of your party.

10. Excuse any demonstrator or rioter for desecrating public monuments and cemeteries or shutting down bridges and freeways, or swarming and disrupting the Capitol Rotunda — but only if they agree with you and/or are pro-Hamas. Otherwise, ensure the charged face lengthy prison sentences.

That’s just the top ten. Please follow the link to the article to read the next ten. It’s amazing how far we have fallen in recent years. When you read the list of things that used to be considered out-of-bounds that have been done since 2016 or so, it is scary.

 

 

 

Why Should They Listen To The Voters?

On Saturday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about one possible outcome of the 2024 election. It is becoming very obvious that as the powers that be work harder and harder to make sure that President Trump does not get a second term, more and more voters are deciding to support him–just to have their voices heard. This is going to make for a very interesting year.

The article reports:

In 2001, 2005 and 2017, some Democrat House members objected to the certification of electoral votes for the winning Republican presidential candidate. Those objections, while “denialist,” were only symbolic. But Democrat leaders in the House are now suggesting that if they control that body following November’s election–as they well might–they may refuse to allow a victorious Donald Trump to take office.

Notice that the objects to the electoral votes were not allowed in 2020–they were pre-empted by the events outside the Capitol and a parliamentary procedure was used to block them when the House reconvened.

The article concludes:

The Democrats have become so insane on the subject of Donald Trump that it is hard to know which of their mutterings to take seriously. But if Trump wins the election and a Democrat-controlled House refuses to certify his election on the ground that he is an “insurrectionist” under the 14th Amendment, we will be past the point of a constitutional crisis. If that happens, the only realistic path forward will be disunion, possibly accompanied by civil war, but preferably not.

This is one reason why the Supreme Court should put the 14th Amendment theory out of its misery, once and for all. It is obvious that the drafters of that amendment meant the just-concluded Civil War, in which 600,000 Americans lost their lives, when they referred to “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. In contrast, the January 6 protest was not one of the 50 most destructive riots of the last few years, and the only person killed was Ashli Babbitt. Not a single participant in the protest was arrested in possession of a firearm. Some insurrection!

In the interest of preserving the Republic, the Supreme Court should rule definitively that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Donald Trump.

Stay tuned.

Does The New York Legal System Recognize The Eighth Amendment?

The Eighth Amendment states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

On February 27th, The American Thinker posted an article explaining how that amendment applies to the New York judgement against President Trump.

The article reports:

On February 16, 2024, a judge in New York State imposed fines totaling just over $360 million on former president Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization, and several related Trump companies and trusts in the civil case brought by the New York attorney general.  President Trump’s sons Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump were fined just over $4 million each.  The court imposed additional sanctions, including injunctions against former president Trump; Donald Trump, Jr.; and Eric Trump from serving as officers or directors in New York corporations for specified numbers of years, among other sanctions.

The media reporting on the court’s decision has been massive since the decision was rendered.  However, little or no reporting focused on the constitutionality of the fines under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  President Trump and his co-defendants all have substantial 8th Amendment “excessive fine” challenges to raise.  In fact, a review of the facts and applicable law reveal that this decision is simply more election interference.

The article concludes:

Applying these factors to the New York court’s decision reveals that the fines are clearly excessive.  There are no victims in the Trump case.  No one was harmed.  Each and every financial institution involved was fully repaid and made money on its loans.  Further, a review of case law in New York demonstrates that there simply are no cases ordering a defendant to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in disgorgement without any victim being deprived of anything.  Finally, just how “reprehensible” is it to obtain loans and credit facilities and then pay the lenders back, in full, on time, in compliance with the agreement?  The answer is, not very.

Once again, a court in New York issued yet another political decision masquerading as justice.  The fines imposed by this New York court on former President Trump and his sons and businesses are grossly and unconstitutionally excessive.  While President Trump and his co-defendants undoubtedly have many defenses to the claims to raise on appeal, chief among them should be a constitutional challenge to these grossly excessive fines.

The U.S. Constitution is an amazing document. It is impartial when followed. My hope is that it will be followed in this case.

Inflation Isn’t Over, And The Damage Will Continue

No one who has bought groceries recently or filled up their gas tank believes inflation is over. Yet recently economist Paul Krugman declared, “Inflation is over. We won.” I guess he doesn’t do the grocery shopping in his family. Yes, inflation has slowed. However, we are still dealing with the price increases that occurred in the past three years. If the baseline is where we were when President Biden took office, the inflation rate is somewhere over 15 percent. If we are talking about the past few months, the number is much lower. However, that number is in addition to the 15 percent that we have already been dealing with.

On Saturday, Real Clear Politics posted a commentary about the damage the Biden administration has done to the economy.

The commentary notes:

The truth is that the wild inflation, high interest rates, bank failures, and other economic harms of the last three years were all entirely avoidable and all entirely caused by President Biden and the Democrats’ arrogant and unwise policies.

This is not “Monday morning quarterbacking.” Some of us were saying this well before the fact. My May 7, 2021 column (“Joe Biden, Economy Killer”) accurately forecast the inflation, rising interest rates, and rising government debt service long before the Biden administration even acknowledged the risks were real.

The U.S. economy did not need another giant stimulus plan when Biden and the Democrats took control in 2021. The U.S. gross domestic product, knocked down by the COVID shutdown in the first half of 2020, had jumped up by a record 33% in the third quarter of 2020 and by another 4% in the fourth quarter, all before Biden took office. The S&P stock market had risen 16.3% in 2020. Employers were waiting for workers to come back to work, and another stimulus package had been passed with bipartisan support in the last quarter of 2020. Happily, the inflation rate was only 1.4% as 2020 ended, with a one-year Treasury rate of just 0.10% and a 10-year Treasury rate of just 0.95%

The commentary concludes:

The Congressional Budget Office last week revised its government deficit estimates upward, expecting $48.3 trillion of government debt by 2034. Interest expense on the federal debt this year has already jumped up to $870 billion, which is larger than the defense budget. Additionally, Biden’s higher interest rates will continue to increase debt service costs as old government debt rolls off and is replaced at higher costs. The risk is stark: a 3% higher interest rate on even the existing $33 trillion level of federal debt equates to $1 trillion of extra federal interest expense each and every year, on top of the already giant existing debt service number.

There is no painless way to pay down this deficit or cover this extra annual government interest cost. The need for billions and billions of extra tax money or budget cuts will fuel fierce political fights, populist divisions, and national anger for years to come. All this public unrest will also be the legacy of the bad Democratic economic policies since 2021. Professor Krugman, when it comes to Bidenomics, “We lost.”

I believe we can turn this around, but it will take an administration that includes people who have worked in the private sector and run businesses. Whatever administration is elected in November needs to include people hired for their qualifications and experience–not for any other reason.

When Facts Contradict The Narrative

On Thursday, The Federalist posted an article about the crisis at our southern border. For more than three years, President Biden has been complaining that he can’t do anything about the border unless Congress passes bills that fund Ukraine. He chooses to overlook the fact that on his first day in office he overturned the Executive Orders passed by President Trump that sealed the border. He also chooses to overlook the fact that he not only refused to build the wall–he sold the parts to build it for pennies on the dollar. (article here)

The Federalist reports:

President Joe Biden has vehemently denied any blame for the years-long U.S. southern border invasion with claims that Congress, not the president, must act to defend the nation.

“I’ve done all I can do,” Biden said last month on the White House lawn. “Just give me the power.”

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the same thing two weeks ago. “There is no executive action that the president can take,” she said, to reinforce the border.

But now Politico is reporting that the president does, in fact, recognize the authority at his disposal to address the border crisis. On Wednesday, the paper reported the administration is “considering a string of new executive actions and federal regulations in an effort to curb migration at the U.S. southern border.”

“Among the ideas under discussion include using a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act to bar migrants from seeking asylum in between U.S. ports of entry,” the report read. “The administration is also discussing tying that directive to a trigger — meaning that it would only come into effect after a certain number of illegal crossings took place.”

The article concludes:

Lies about presidential powerlessness, however, have become the standard response from Democrats on the border. The number of illegal crossings has approximately doubled under President Biden, with 1.7 million “gotaways” evading capture over the three years he’s been in office. Last week, House Republicans formally impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for failing to keep U.S. borders secure.

“It certainly is a crisis,” Mayorkas said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” earlier this month, “But fundamentally, Congress is the only one who can fix it.”

Biden’s allies on Capitol Hill have made the same arguments. New York Rep. Dan Goldman called the House impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas an example of “taking the scalp” for “the MAGA base” to scapegoat blame for a crisis which can “only be addressed by legislation.”

While Democrats continue to say this on TV, Politico reports more executive orders for border action are in the pipeline, indicating the White House believes it can indeed address the border without the need for action from Congress.

The border remains open because country-club Republicans want cheap labor and Democrats want future voters. Meanwhile, Americans are being denied benefits and being forced out of jobs by illegal immigrants who are working outside the system. We need to close the border, and we need to enforce e-verify.

The Consequences Have Arrived

On Tuesday, The Conservative Review posted an article detailing what has happened in Oregon as a result of decriminalizing the possession of hard drugs such as heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine in 2020.

The article reports:

Oregon became the first state in the union to decriminalize possession of hard drugs such as heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine in 2020. This radical experiment in lawlessness has been an unmitigated disaster.

While initially deaf to the concerns raised by Republicans, recovery specialists, and Christian groups concerning Ballot Measure 110, state Democrats are now poised to re-criminalize drug possession and bring their four-year experiment to an end. After all, the majority of Oregonians want the measure repealed.

…The so-called “Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act” eliminated criminal penalties for possession of various quantities of hard drugs. As a result, junkies can now carry one gram of heroin; 2 grams of cocaine; 2 grams of meth; less than 40 user units of methadone; 1 gram or 5 pills of MDMA; less than 40 user units of LSD; and fewer than 40 pills of oxycodone.

Possession of such quantities amounts to a non-criminal Class E violation, which at most can result in a $100 fine or a recommendation for a health assessment with an addiction treatment professional.

Those caught with even more of these once-controlled substances have also seen penalties softened, such that they now face a misdemeanor charge with less than a year in jail, a fine, or both.

Extra to decriminalizing hard drugs, the measure mandated the establishment or funding of recovery centers throughout the state funded by taxes on marijuana.

The article lists the results of the law:

According to Oregon Health Authority data, fatal overdoses have skyrocketed in recent years. In 2020, there were 824 fatal overdoses. The year M110 went into effect, there were 1,189 fatal overdoses. Preliminary data indicates the number of deaths from overdoses in 2022 was north of 1,100.

Fentanyl is proving especially lethal. OregonLive.com noted that in the year ending September 2019, there were 77 known fentanyl deaths. In the year ending September 2023, there were reportedly 1,268 overdose deaths.

There appears to be a correlation between fatal overdoses and M110.

Please follow the link for further details and possible solutions. This really should not be a Republican/Democrat or Liberal/Conservative issue. I believe all of us want to protect our children and young adults from the dangers of hard drugs. Hopefully Oregon will pass a law that moves the state in that direction.

Keeping The SALT Limit Where It Is

On Wednesday, Yahoo News posted an article about a bill to change the SALT deduction. The bill failed in the House of Representatives. The SALT deduction is the State and Local Tax deduction that President Trump capped at $10,000. High-tax states like New York, New Jersey, California, and Pennsylvania want the limit higher. That way when they charge their residents exorbitant tax rates, the residents can deduct those taxes on their federal income tax. In some high-tax states, just the real estate taxes on an average home are over $10,000. Generally, allowing higher SALT deductions is a gift to wealthy people and to people who live in high-tax states. In a sense, lower-tax states are funding the spending of the higher-tax states.

The article at Yahoo states:

A bill called the SALT Marriage Penalty Elimination Act, which would have raised the tax cap for some married filers and ease some of the burden in high-tax states like New York, was on the table in the House of Representatives. But it was rejected before it could even be formally considered.

“I’m hopeful this can be a moment of unity among my colleagues on both sides of the aisle,” said Rep. Mike Lawler (R.-N.Y.), the bill’s lead sponsor, as the debate got underway on Wednesday afternoon.

But — as was widely expected — it was not to be, with both Republicans and Democrats voting against the bill as it failed to garner agreement in a procedural vote.

The final vote on adopting a combined rule was rejected in a tally of 195-225, a defeat that is likely the end of the bill for the time being.

While I agree that all of our taxes should go down, limiting the SALT deduction was a way to hold high-tax states more accountable.