Tuesday, March 8, 2016


Tomorrow, Wednesday, March 9th, from 2 to 4pm, Right Side Patriots Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss Hillary's buddy Bryan Pagliano now singing like a bird, the logistics of a brokered convention, and remembering Nancy Reagan.

Hope you can tune in at: americanpbn.com

Presidential candidate Donald Trump published his health proposal on his website recently. Trump’s health policy proposal is a veritable tossed salad of garden-variety Republican ideas slathered (liberally) with a nutty dressing of ill-thought out sound bites and populist rhetoric.

Remember that Trump is the guy who famously said it would be very simple… “Lock the best health care policy minds in a room -- and don’t let them out until they’ve crafted a plan for providing terrific coverage for everyone.” One question those of us who work in health policy want to know is who would Trump lock into a room? Nobody I know one can identify a single Trump health care advisor. It’s a mystery.

Some of the previous proposals Trump has stated on the campaign trail point to a disjointed, incoherent plan. Fortunately, much of the bad health policy Trump flirted with on the campaign trail is noticeably absent from his official website.

Universal Coverage. Trump hinted that he supports universal coverage when he said he doesn’t want people to “die in the streets” because they cannot afford health coverage. I don’t know why Republicans allow this narrative to endure. Most sick people die in their beds or in a hospital bed. Moreover, about 60 percent of health care spending is on chronic illness related to poor lifestyle choices. Think obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes and many case of cancer. If you actual talk to moderate-income people, most are not terribly excited by the prospects of having high deductible health plans. What they actually want is the ability to see a doctor when they get sick.
On the eve of the Conservative Political Action Conference, South Carolina’s legislature decided to pass a bill that would nullify any new federal gun regulations that limit access to firearms and ammunition. Yet, the debate isn’t your typical one seen pervasively in blue states. Democrats, some of whom are pro-gun, said that the bill would hinder anti-domestic terrorism efforts; quite a departure from the talking points emanating from New York City (via The Post and Courier):
The Second Amendment Preservation Act directs state officials to not enforce any federal law, rule or regulation that took effect after Jan. 1 that limits access to firearms and ammunition. […]
The bill’s author, Laurens Republican Rep. Mike Pitts, rebuffed that argument. He said the measure aims to protect from new laws enacted after Jan. 1. It would not apply if Congress extends the gun-buying waiting period from 72 hours to 10 days or more because they would be amending existing law, he said.
“The ‘Charleston loophole’ was a sidetrack to use a motion to fight this particular bill,” Pitts said. “I don’t think (the bill) would’ve drawn any debate if it weren’t an election year.”
Charleston Democrat Leon Stavrinakis was among those who argued against the bill on the floor by stressing the need to protect the country from domestic terrorism. Now its opponents have to count on the bill gaining no traction in the Senate, which has been stuck in filibuster limbo since the start of the session, or for it to return with a more narrow scope.
Stavrinakis also said that if the federal government ever took actions to limit Second Amendment freedom, the legislature would fight to the death to protect our oldest civil right.
White House falsely claims Iran using sanctions cash domestically, not for military

By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch


White House falsely claims Iran using sanctions cash domestically, not for military
They’ve lied about the success of airstrikes against the Islamic State. So it’s no surprise that they would lie in this context as well. “White House Making Up Iran Data?,” by Michael Rubin, Commentary, March 6, 2016: Colin Kahl, Vice President Joseph Biden’s National Security Advisor, reportedly told a conference at the RAND Corporation that […]
Read in browser »

share on Twitter Like White House falsely claims Iran using sanctions cash domestically, not for military on Facebook Google Plus One Button 

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Dissent: AFDI v King County

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

Today The Supreme Court of the United States denied our cert petition in this case. However, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, filed an excellent dissent, see below. The dissent is just that, a dissent. It is not the outcome we wanted, but it is certainly worth reading.  It boils this fight down to its essential oils.

Thomas and Alito, the only two real Constitutionalists on the court. This is why Scalia’s replacement is so critical.

Screen Shot 2016-03-07 at 11.47.41 AM