Sanctuary Cities: No More Free Money for Lawbreaking and OPEN THREAD

From The Hill:

State and local governments seeking Justice Department grants must certify they are not so-called sanctuary cities in order to receive the money, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Monday.

“Such policies cannot continue. They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on the streets,” Sessions said during a surprise appearance in the White House press briefing room.

“Today, I am urging states and local jurisdictions to comply with these federal laws.”

The announcement is the latest step by the Trump administration to crack down on sanctuary cities, which do not assist federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws.

[…]

Sessions said that compliance with federal immigration laws will be a prerequisite for states and localities that want to receive grants from the department’s Office of Justice Programs. The office provides billions of dollars in grants and other funding to help criminal justice programs across the country.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
NFL's Raiders: Las Vegas - 1; Oakland - 0.
  • Scalia

    Trump to sign executive order unraveling Obama’s climate record”:

    President Donald Trump will take the most significant step yet in obliterating his predecessor’s environmental record Tuesday, instructing federal regulators to rewrite key rules curbing U.S. carbon emissions.

    The sweeping executive order also seeks to lift a moratorium on federal coal leasing and remove the requirement that federal officials consider the impact of climate change when making decisions.

    The order sends an unmistakable signal that just as President Barack Obama sought to weave climate considerations into every aspect of the federal government, Trump is hoping to rip that approach out by its roots.

    “This policy is in keeping with President Trump’s desire to make the United States energy independent,” said a senior administration official who briefed reporters on the directive Monday evening and asked for anonymity to speak in advance of the announcement. “When it comes to climate change, we want to take our course and do it in our own form and fashion.”

    […]

    The order comes after several moves by Trump to roll back Obama-era restrictions on mining, drilling and coal- and gas-burning operations. In his first two months as president, Trump has nullified a regulation barring surface-mining companies from polluting waterways and set aside a new accounting system that would have compelled coal companies and other energy firms to pay more in federal royalties.

    • Hurrah!

      • Constitution First

        “Obama sought to weave climate considerations into every aspect of the federal government” Or put another way:
        “Obama sought to weave the federal government into every aspect of our lives”

        There, fixed it for you.

  • Scalia

    Dems delay Senate panel vote on Supreme Court nominee:

    Democrats are delaying for one week an initial committee vote on Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court.

    Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the committee, said Democrats had requested that the committee’s vote on Gorsuch be punted to next week.

    “I understand that the minority would like to hold [him] over,” Grassley said during the Judiciary Committee’s meeting on Monday.

    Under committee rules any one member can request that a nomination be held the first time it appears on the agenda.

    Democrats were widely expected to delay the committee’s vote until next week.
    The delay means the committee vote will take place on April 3, giving Republicans days to meet their goal of winning Gorsuch’s confirmation by the full Senate by the end of that week.

    The Senate will then go into a recess.

  • Scalia

    NCAA gives North Carolina ultimatum on ‘bathroom bill’:

    The NCAA is threatening to remove North Carolina from consideration to host championship games for the foreseeable future if the state does not repeal a law regulating public restrooms, locker rooms and showers on the basis of biological sex.

    The collegiate sports league will announce championship locations from 2018 to 2022 on April 18, and it said North Carolina will not be among them unless HB2 is repealed.

    “Absent any change in the law, our position remains the same regarding hosting current or future events in the state,” the NCAA said in a statement Thursday. “As the state knows, next week our various sports committees will begin making championship site selections for 2018-2022 based upon bids received from across the country.”

    “Once the sites are selected by the committee, those decisions are final and an announcement of all sites will be made on April 18,” the statement continued.

    The NCAA already pulled seven championship games out of North Carolina this academic year because of the “cumulative impact HB2 had on local communities’ ability to assure a safe, healthy, discrimination free atmosphere for all those watching and participating in our events.”

    • Hank_M

      I see that March Madness is about more than basketball.

      • Retired military

        MOre like political correctness kookiness.

    • pennywit

      What is this NCAA of which you speak?

      • Scalia

        National Communist Autocrats Association.

        • pennywit

          True story: An former colleague of mine once said something about the SEC and March Madness. I actually asked him what securities trading had to do with college basketball. He said I’ve been in DC too long.

          • Scalia

            That was a true laugh-out-loud moment for me.

          • pennywit

            Glad I could entertain you. Looking back, that scandal that the SEC a few years ago — the one where SEC lawyers had discs and discs full of porn — probably angered me more than a lot of other things I’d read in the news that year.

            I knew (and knew) a LOT of damn good attorneys who would love to work for the SEC and would have done an excellent job for the agency. And while they couldn’t get jobs at the agency, its own attorneys were looking at porn.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      A society that is unable to determine which bathroom a person with male genitalia should use is a society that has well and truly lost its way.

      • Constitution First

        The Fascist portion of our society that push a wacko agenda, number no more than 30%. The truly confused when they look down their pants, number no more than 1/2%. If it where 10% like the malfeasant media says, that would mean 1-in-10 people you meet in the street couldn’t tell you which way was up. That, sir, would be a truly frightening scenario.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          According to your statistics [and I have no reason to doubt them], 3-in-10 people you meet in the street will tell you up is down.
          I find that less than comforting.

  • Scalia

    Mexicans who help build Trump wall ‘traitors,’ top Archdiocese says:

    MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexicans who help build U.S. President Donald Trump’s planned border wall would be acting immorally and should be deemed traitors, the Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico said on Sunday, turning up the heat on a simmering dispute over the project.

    In a provocative editorial, the country’s biggest Archdiocese sought to increase pressure on the government to take a tougher line on companies aiming to profit from the wall, which has strained relations between Trump and the Mexican government.

    “Any company intending to invest in the wall of the fanatic Trump would be immoral, but above all, its shareholders and owners should be considered traitors to the homeland,” said the editorial in Desde la fe, the Archdiocese’s weekly publication.

    On Tuesday, Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo warned firms it would not be in their “interests” to participate in the wall. But the editorial accused the government of responding “tepidly” to those eyeing the project for business.

    A spokesman for the Archdiocese, which centers on Mexico City and is presided over by the country’s foremost Roman Catholic cleric, Cardinal Norberto Rivera, said the editorial represented the views of the diocese.

    • Olsoljer

      How much longer will the Catholic church exist? When the so called “Pope” involves himself and the church so deeply in geopolitical edicts, calls for worldwide acceptance of the one ideology that is dedicated to the total destruction of any theology but their own, one must wonder just which side of the good vs evil they support.

      • Scalia

        Moreover, his criticisms are exclusively or almost exclusively in one direction—against Western thought. He also doesn’t understand how hypocritical he sounds when the Vatican practices the very thing he preaches against. He needs to remember to take the beam out of his own eye before he pontificates about the deeds of others.

        • Retired military

          I would love to see about 1000 Muslims show up in St Peter’s square and announce to the cameras “This is our new home”

          • Scalia

            Yeah, bets would be laid on how quickly the Swiss Guards give them the boot.

          • PBunyan

            There is a wall around the Vatican. Built by traitors to the church, I guess…

    • b l

      Don’t see how they could be considered traitors. The wall is a great thing for Mexico. I keep hearing about how much these illegal immigrants contribute to the economy, how the country needs their talents, energy and enthusiasm.
      So doesn’t Mexico need them MORE? Isn’t allowing these people to abandon their homeland the real betrayal?

  • Scalia

    NOHO SCHOOL BUDGET CUTS DUE TO HIGH WHITE STUDENT PERCENTAGE SPARKS OUTRAGE:

    NORTH HOLLYWOOD, LOS ANGELES (KABC) — Outrage has grown at Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, as the school faces layoffs and increased class sizes due to a law limiting funds for schools with a higher white student body.

    The Los Angeles Unified School District provides more funding for schools where the white population is below 30 percent.

    In a letter to parents, the district noted the highly regarded middle school had been above the percentage for the past couple years.

    The racial formula was a condition imposed by court decisions dealing with desegregation in the 1970s.

    • Hank_M

      Racial formula’s. Uniting one and all since the 1970’s.

      Normally, I might be outraged.
      But this is California and I hope they enjoy what they’ve created.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Certainly, La Raza can help.

  • Scalia

    Homeowner’s son shoots, kills three would-be burglars

    Three would-be robbers were shot and killed Monday when an Oklahoma homeowner’s son opened fire on them with an AR-15, authorities said.

    Wagoner County sheriff’s deputies were called to the home in Broken Arrow, southeast of Tulsa at around 12:30 p.m. local time. When they arrived, they found the three dead suspects and two uninjured residents.

    Sheriff’s spokesman Deputy Nick Mahoney said the suspects enetered the home through a glass back door with the intent to burglarize it. It was not immediately clear why they picked that home.

    Mahoney said the suspects encountered the homeowner’s 19-year-old son, who opened fire after an exchange of words. Two of the suspects died in the home’s kitchen while a third was found in the driveway.

    It was not immediately clear whether the suspects were armed, but Mahoney said the preliminary investigation indicated the shootings were in self-defense. The homeowner’s son volunteered to give a statement at the sheriff’s office.

    This is very, very unusual for us [in Wagoner County],” Mahoney told the Tulsa World. “It’s not something we’re used to.”

    • pennywit

      Hmph. I don’t think the getaway driver should be charged with murder.

      • Felony muder. When one is an accomplice of a felony resulting in death.

        • Retired military

          Dont do the crime if you cant do the crime.
          Dont do it.

          • Scalia

            Brings back memories.

          • pennywit

            I hope you understand why I don’t like the getaway driver being charged with murder. As far as I’m concerned, her co-conspirators’ death is the responsibility of the guy with the gun and of the late gentlemen who decided to embark on a career in larceny.

          • Retired military

            Understood
            But the law states that if you are an accomplice you get the same charges. In other words, the law is saying don’t tag along with idiots who get involved in bad shit because you may wind up going to jail with them. It is a law I happen to agree with.

          • pennywit

            I have no issue with charging her with robbery. If her accomplices had attempted to murder the homeowner’s son, I’d also have no problem with charging her with attempted murder under an accomplice theory. I just find it strange that her accomplices were killed by somebody else outside their conspiracy, yet she faces charges for their deaths.

          • She was a willing participant in the chain of events that resulted in numerous felonies and death. It was a foreseeable possible outcome of the actions she undertook.

          • Retired military

            So next time someone drives a kid to school knowing they will commit a crime and the kid shoots 30 people than whoever drove them to school should get off scot free right?
            Sorry if you had your way every one and their brother would be saying “I didn’t know my partner in crime was going to do X, Y, or Z” and would only be getting charged with some misdemeanor.
            Plus their partner in crime would be saying the same.
            This way is easy. They both participate in a crime in which someone is killed and they both get charged with felony murder.

            Don’t do the crime if you cant do the time.

          • pennywit

            That is a willful misinterpretation of my statements.

            Let’s imagine a scenario.

            Dolly Defendant wants to do a school shooting. Dolly Defendant persuades Carl Conspirator to drive her to the school. Dolly Defendant goes into the school and shoots at three students. However, Ted the Teacher has a pistol that day, and he shoots Dolly through the eyes.

            I would say that Carl Conspirator should be on the hook for Dolly shooting students, but not for Dolly’s death at Ted’s hands.

          • b l

            Why not?
            Once someone is set on committing a crime like that, they have indirectly but most certainly agreed to their own death, as killing them in self defense is lawful.
            So if Carl KNOWS Dolly has gone to shoot a school, then Carl KNOWS that Dolly’s death is a likely outcome of THEIR criminal efforts. Yet he participates anyway? Why?
            However, I see an argument against it as well.
            Dolly’s death is not murder and not a crime. Therefore, where does the charge come from?

          • Retired military

            Well we can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets fuller faster.
            The law reads X. If you dont want the law to read X you go through proper channels to try to change it. Until it is changed it still means X. I know that you are a democrat and to SOME democrats the wording of the law means nothing but in this case I have no issues with the prosecuter continuing to procede along course

          • Carl Conspirator deserves to stand trial for criminal murder, and upon conviction to spend the rest of his life in prison.

          • Retired military

            If this shooting had happened in a liberal state I can see where the driver might not consider that her co-felons might not be killed by a homeowner with a weapon. In states like Texas and OK that thinking goes out the window. I have several friends whose home defense weapon of choice is a .50 cal handgun. Oh and hollow points are legal here.

          • Someone died the in attempted commission of the felony she agreed to drive them to/from. Any death arising from that felony should indeed be charged against all the accomplices.

          • Scalia

            Yes, I understand your point, and when I was much younger, I would have agreed; however (you knew that was coming, right?), if she can (and should) be charged as a principal for attempted robbery, and if she can (and should) be held liable for any and all damage to the property as a result of said attempt, then she should be held liable for any deaths that occur as a result of the same.

            A participant can and should be aware that criminal acts can result in property damage and death. All participants should be charged as principals unless it can be proved that a participant was coerced or was completely ignorant that a crime would be committed.

          • Willful ignorance should be no excuse. Reasonable person test.

          • Retired military

            “her co-conspirators’ death is the responsibility of the guy with the gun and of the late gentlemen who decided to embark on a career in larceny.”

            here let me fix that for you

            “her co-conspirators’ death is the responsibility of the late gentlemen who decided to embark on a career in larceny.

          • pennywit

            “Fix rejected.” The co-conspirators death is the gun owner’s responsibility. However, he has a solid defense.

          • Retired military

            If they werent there they wouldnt have been shot.

          • The person who shot the perpetrators was justified, and the shooting was righteous.

            None of the perpetrators nor their accomplices deserve to walk away.

          • The intended victim who shot the perpetrator was performing a public service.

          • Ayup.

    • Too few perpetrators slain.

  • Scalia

    Vote to Replace Obamacare Back On:

    Four days after House Speaker Paul Ryan pulled the Republican replacement for Obamacare, the White House has signaled Ryan and House Republicans that it wants a vote on the American Health Care Act after all.

    Several Republican lawmakers told Newsmax on Monday that meetings were held to eliminate portions of the AHCA that had led to both the conservative Freedom Caucus and moderate Tuesday Group in the House withdrawing their support from the measure and making its defeat inevitable.

    As of Tuesday morning, House Republican leaders announced that the revised legislation would shortly be brought up to a vote and that Democratic celebrations over the defeat of the Obamacare replacement were, in Ryan’s words, premature.

    • Hank_M

      I have no doubt the repubs are going to screw this up and end up being blamed for every problem we have with health care.

      I also can’t believe they didn’t have a valid obamacare repeal bill ready to go.

      • Retired military

        They had one. They knew that Obama would never sign it and that is why it passed. But since they know that Trump WILL sign it RINO Ryan doesn’t want to do anything.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      I don’t believe ObamaCare will ever go away. Once entitlement programs are in place, there are too many sob stories of people who will lose “everything” and die because of the evil Republicans.

      • Scalia

        I was initially inclined to disagree with you, but the events of late have sadly turned me the other way.

        • Retired military

          If they got rid of RINO Ryan and McCuckold McConnell in the leadership then it might go smoother. Those 2 had no problem giving Obama just about everything he asked for but cant get something that they have been working on for 6 years across.

          • fustian24

            The Brooks bill is very simple:

            “Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.”

            It’ll never pass though.

            As instapundit continually points out, such a bill offers “insufficient opportunities for graft, for deal-making, for influence-peddling”.

            All the Republicans will do is rearrange the deck chairs a little and in 5-10 years we’ll be looking at single payer.

          • Brucehenry

            You are under the mistaken impression that the GOP had been “working on” a replacement for the reviled Obamacare.They weren’t.

            That’s why, when the chance to repeal finally came, they had NOT ONE idea that would decrease premiums, lower deductibles, cover more people, or address costs. They’ve never been interested in solutions, just free-market bromides masquerading as solutions.

            We were all just supposed to trust them when they assured us that if the ACA was repealed the free market something something across state lines something something more choice would magically fix everything “soon.”

            EDIT: Just as they had no solutoions after defeating HIllarycare in 1993, they spent twelve years as the majority party without coming up with a solution to the worsening health insurance crisis. When somebody — Obama and the Democrats — FINALLY got off their asses and did something all they did was bitch about it and try to undermine it or repeal it and they STILL didn’t come up with anything.

            So after 24 years of waiting for a GOP solution, we got Ryancare, and it sucked so bad even Republicans wouldn’t buy it.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          I’m asking this question in all seriousness: Has there ever been a Federal entitlement program that was repealed or otherwise done away with? I’m curious to see what the Rs do with Donald’s proposed budget which does away with funding NPR, NEA, etc. and cuts funding to the State Department and the UN.
          Any bets on how those proposals end up?

          • Scalia

            You know, I can’t think of any. Our fickle RINOs are too jittery over public opinion or that somebody might say nasty things about them to have the resolve to do what is right.

            Sometimes leaders have to act like Admiral David Farragut at the Battle of Mobile Bay.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Now it’s: “In the name of CAGW, torpedo the dams, full reverse.”

          • Brucehenry

            Aid to Families with Dependent Children was gutted in 1996.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            No it wasn’t – but you know that.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure it was. You may believe those sneaky lazy poor people continue to suck the blood of virtuous hardworking (white) people like yourself, but if they do, they’re not doing it through AFDC.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Now it’s called “TANF” – same thing – but you know that.

          • Brucehenry

            So are those two links supposed to demonstrate that AFDC and TANF are “the same thing?” Because they don’t.

            Here’s a very short summary of SOME of the differences between how those lazy poor people USED to rob virtuous hardworking folks like you and how they’re robbing you now:

            https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7issi7/9-Differences-between-AFDC-and-TANF-AFDC-TANF-Federal-funding-Unlimited/

          • Scalia

            Yes, there are major differences, but it wasn’t like AFDC was axed without any kind of replacement. I think Walter was asking (please correct me, Walter, if I’m wrong) about an entitlement program that was completely repealed without any kind of replacement.

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe he was. But in any case AFDC and TANF are not “the same thing” and the snark that “but you knew that” was uncalled for given how he phrased his original comment. Hence my snarky reply.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Some regs were changed along with the acronym. Same thing. Welfare is welfare.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, poor people are being helped. Can’t have that.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I didn’t say poor people can’t be helped. Just pointed out that TANF is the successor program to AFDC and is basically the same thing. And you know that.

          • Not the place of Government under the Constitution.

          • SOS.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          One other question in all seriousness: Is there any fiscally responsible way to do away with pre-existing exceptions in medical insurance [which everyone seems to favor] WITHOUT a mandate that all must purchase insurance [which a seeming majority seems to disfavor]?

          • fustian24

            Is there any fiscally responsible way to do away with pre-existing exceptions in medical insurance [which everyone seems to favor] WITHOUT a mandate that all must purchase insurance [which a seeming majority seems to disfavor]?

            I think not.

            If you look at what medical insurance REALLY costs, it’s probably somewhere above $1,000 per month for a family of 3 or 4 once you get the government and your company out of the insurance business. I wouldn’t be surprised if adding pre-existing conditions doubles or triples that (but I’m just guessing here).

            Well, you know that you need to get into upper middle class territory before anybody can afford that.

            Which means that each of those people needs to pay the health insurance of how many poor families? 5? 10? More?

            If you just take 10 families, then an upper middle class family needs to pay from a minimum of $10,000 every month.

            Never going to happen. We just can’t afford Obamacare.

          • pennywit

            One other question in all seriousness: Is there any fiscally responsible way to do away with pre-existing exceptions in medical insurance [which everyone seems to favor] WITHOUT a mandate that all must purchase insurance [which a seeming majority seems to disfavor]?

            The problem with health insurance is healthier individuals (especially the so-called “young invulnerables”) don’t use healthcare services often, so they don’t see the need to purchase the insurance. One of three things happens:

            1) These folks get a little older and realize that health insurance is a good idea. Once they’re older, they are higher risks, so insuring them costs more.

            2) One of these folks gets his ass injured in some gruesome way. He needs healthcare, so he goes to the ER. He lacks insurance or the ability to pay, so the hospital has to write off a lot of his fees. Cost of healthcare goes up as a result.

            3) Dude waits until he sees signs of cancer. He signs up for health insurance. Because of his increased risk, insurance costs are higher for him, and for everyone else in the risk pool.

            I can think of one fiscally responsible way to remedy this, but I don’t think anybody will like it: Relieve emergency medical facilities of their obligation to provide emergency care to individuals who lack the ability to pay through their own pocketbooks, medical insurance, or a public-benefits program such as Medicaid or Medicare. It’s cruel and heartless, but I think it’s the only way to ensure a person faces consequences for poor healthcare decision making.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You make me feel like a bleeding-heart. I think I’ve been triggered – I’m going to retire to my safe space.

          • pennywit

            Don’t you do that every year from August until early January?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I’ve tried to in the past, but it’s like a wreck, more like about 15 wrecks, on the highway. I’ve just gotta look at the carnage.

          • pennywit

            Sounds like your safe space needs a lock and a Patriots fan to be your warden.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            What my safe space really needs are three little female puppies named Raven, Steeler and Bengal.

          • pennywit

            Y’know, one incident ticks me off more than any other. Back in 2003 or so, when I was still in law school, a friend was in town with another friend of his to protest something or other. I had lunch with them to catch up. When the conversation turned to healthcare, the friend-of-the-friend pissed me off when he spouted that “healthcare should be free.” I wanted to reach across the table and throttle him, honestly.

            At the time, I was in law school, living off of a combination of student loans, a part-time law clerk job, and (to be honest) help from my parents, and my then-girlfriend taking on a bigger share of our household expenses.

            I generally had an OK time of it, but among my expenses was an OK (but not great) health insurance policy, purchased on the individual market, that I could barely afford, and that cost me a couple hundred bucks a month. And this guy, able-bodied and ten years younger than I, wanted to take money out of my pocket because he couldn’t be bothered to pay for insurance.

            That was one sign that while I’m liberal, I’ve got my limits.

          • Scalia

            The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

          • So said the Iron Lady.

          • Brucehenry

            Obviously I wasn’t there for the context of the conversation but I have often said things like “healthcare should be free” or “Medicare for all” because I believe that single-payer is the way to go, not because I don’t want to be bothered to pay for insurance. Even back in the 90s when I had an excellent and affordable healthcare plan for my family I believed it was the right thing for the country to do.

            So I’m glad you didn’t throttle your friend’s friend. He was probably (or at least perhaps) only using shorthand for “I want single-payer” which is a pretty mainstream political position in the Western world.

          • Vagabond661

            People who want single payer should move to a country with single payer. Isn’t that why Big Government broke up Ma Bell?

          • Brucehenry

            And people who don’t want Obamacare should move to a country without it I guess.

            No offense, but that is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on Wizbang, and that’s saying something.

          • pennywit

            So why not do healthcare reform on the state level, then?

          • Brucehenry

            Sure if it can be done.

          • Brucehenry

            Ain’t gonna happen in NC where I live in the foreseeable future. Just today it was proclaimed that a “repeal” of HB2 had passed the state Senate. Turns out the “repeal” is a repeal in name only. This state is getting more bassackward every week.

          • Vote with your feet, your current neighbors will thank you.

          • Vagabond661

            Really? The VA is a shining example of Big Government run healthcare.

          • Brucehenry

            If you think people don’t like government-paid healthcare propose privatizing (or abolishing) Medicare to a senior citizen.

          • Vagabond661

            So you believe the VA is in good shape? People are getting quality healthcare?

          • Brucehenry

            No, I think few politicians truly give a shit about veterans beyond using their service and sacrifice as campaign props.

          • jim_m

            Hold the presses. I agree with you. But more specifically, I don’t think that there has been a dem politician since Kennedy who gave two shits about veterans (including Carter) and most dems would rather spit on a vet than do anything to help them out. Nearly 100% of dems who served are like Kerry, who served for the resume and not because they felt any desire to support or defend our nation and who immediately turned on the US and her servicemen at the earliest opportunity.

          • One time in 720. Broken clock.

          • Brucehenry

            The VA’s problems have grown throughout both Dem and GOP administrations, both Dem and GOP Congresses. Dumbass.

          • jim_m

            My comments were not about the VA. But yes the VA is a great example of government run healthcare and is exactly what you want for the entire nation when you push for obamacare to keep being expanded.

          • Brucehenry

            Just as I thought you weren’t following the conversation but simply itching to say something angry and snarky to ME, specifically. Vagabond and I WERE discussing the VA.

          • jim_m

            And you were saying that the VA sucked and that pols didn’t really care about vets other than to use them as props in campaigns. I agree with you. Pols don’t care. Dems care even less than republicans (and I actually think that some get perverse pleasure in keeping the VA a cesspit of inefficient care for the purpose of injuring vets).

            I have been in VA hospitals that looked like the staging for the movie Saw. These are places that I wouldn’t want anyone except the most loathed personal enemies to go. Not even you Bruce.

          • Vagabond661

            So if Big Government treats their own veterans like that, veterans who served and fought for their country, why wouldn’t they treat you like that when they had complete control of your healthcare?

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe because I wouldn’t be part of a tiny bloc of voters who can be pandered to and then ignored, but one of millions and millions whom they had better not piss off.

          • Vagabond661

            Like Bernie supporters? The DNC wrote y’all off to put their gal in there. Good one.

          • Brucehenry

            If we had single payer maybe your attention deficit disorder could be looked at. The DNC is not the government.

          • Vagabond661

            Holy shit. That is part of your problem. What is the DNC made up of? Gummi bears?

            The answer is you would be no more special, no more significant, no more special than those veterans who number 22 million by the way.

          • Brucehenry

            Well dude I realize I’m not going to convince anyone here of the virtues of single payer. I only brought it up in response to Pennywit’s anecdote. You feel free to continue to support “free market solutions” to health care issues, and I’ll continue to support my causes.

            Off topic but on the subject of your avatar:

            https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/17426016_1978606025560424_3412365116395296159_n.jpg?oh=cbd8fc5e7b5df81a7c52730678e6065f&oe=5963B3F2

          • Vagabond661

            Single payers don’t work in monopolies. The concept is great as with many liberal ideas. They just don’t work in practical applications.

            EDIT: As far as free market solutions, it turned us from a brand new country to a world super power in 200 years. If it wasn’t for the socialists who saddled us with the likes EPA and D of education, we still would be.

          • Brucehenry

            Except when they do, as in Western and Northern Europe.

          • Vagabond661

            At what tax rate? Really getting your money’s worth there.

          • Brucehenry

            And as I have said, please show me the European politician proposing they scrap these tax-paid systems and go Commando, and I’ll show you an unelected European politician.

          • Vagabond661

            The politician never will. It means giving up control and entitlements.

          • Brucehenry

            It also means losing elections because the electorate doesn’t want to scrap their single-payer systems.

          • Vagabond661

            So single payer phone company is bad right? Monopoly is bad right?

            You know why……right?

          • Vagabond661

            Coming from you, it means squat. I hear the Looney Left orgasmic over other countries’ healthcare, ignorant of how it operates and the cost.

            The best way I can esplain it Lucy is to tell them to move there. Have babies there. Get sick there.

            Then come back and tell me how ours suck. Compare waiting 3 hours in a doctors office to 3 days, weeks or months.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, you can believe all the horror stories you hear on the wingnut web if you wish about the healthcare systems in other advanced democracies. I assure you the voters in those countries have no interest in scrapping their systems and moving to the dog-eat-dog I mean free market private insurance based system we have here.

          • Ha, ha!

          • jim_m

            I have been to those countries, and their health care systems are exactly as described. Go ahead and claim it is just wing nut rhetoric. You only demonstrate that you are a provincial rube and a jackass.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure, which explains why, year after year, no politician in those countries propose scuttling their universal systems and going USA commando.

          • jim_m

            Actually, they continually seek to reform their systems , and much like the US is now seeing, their politicians lack the resolve to take the necessary measures to truly do so.

            In some countries, like France, most hospitals lack basic facilities such as air conditioning. This failure to provide even the most basic of facilities for their patients resulted in hundreds of deaths in the heat wave of 2003. Between 15,000 and 19,000 people died in the heat wave of 2003 because the French health system could not accommodate or treat people with something as simple as heat exhaustion.

            In the Netherlands, physicians routinely withhold medical care from infants and the elderly because they are seeking to cut costs. While leftists mock the concept of “death panels” these have been a reality in Europe for over 30 years. Approximately 1000 infants under the age of 1 die each year int he Netherlands. 60% of them are euthanized by the government.</b?

            In the UK, substandard forms of testing are used to test the blood supply. The NHSBT uses methods not approved or validated by the diagnostic manufacturers to cut corners and save money on testing. Also in the UK, serial killer Harold Frederick Shipman was able to murder over 250 people largely because patient deaths eased the finances of the NHS and suspect deaths were routinely overlooked. In 2012 a patient died from dehydration despite calling the police asking for help. The hospital turned the police away and the patient died the following day from neglect.

            These are the health care systems you claim are the best in the world. You are an ignorant ass.

          • Brucehenry

            It is my understanding that in some countries, like France, not only hospitals but most homes, hotels, restaurants and stores lack air conditioning because it is so rarely needed.

            You don’t cite a source for your statistics. Not that I mistrust you lol,

          • jim_m

            Hundreds died in Paris, Lyon and Marseilles. While temperatures in the 100’s like the heat waves are unusual, upper 80’s and 90’s are common. Most office buildings and hotels are in fact air conditioned.

          • Brucehenry

            I’ll take your word for it. And “hundreds died” indeed, most of them in their own homes, which also lacked A/C.

          • jim_m

            No. Hundreds died in hospitals. Nearly 20,000 died in total. No one should have died in a hospital where there was no AC.

          • Brucehenry

            The basic challenge of healthcare is delivering expensive services with minimal delay to the vast majority of the population who can’t afford it. Nobody can use “free markets” to make heart surgery cheap because heart surgery will never be cheap — the very nature of the product requires dedicated facilities and high-cost labor that ensure that it won’t be a bargain under the best of circumstances.

            With most products, the free market works just fine because free markets provide a simple answer — if you can’t afford it, then you go without. If you can’t afford lobster, then you may have to live with tuna. If you can’t afford a new Ferrari, then a used Honda may have to do the trick. If you can’t afford artisan bread, then you get by with Oroweat.

            If you need chemotherapy, then there is no $9 solution at Walgreens to fix your problem. Your required course of treatment is not dictated by how much you can spend. And you can’t just go without, because the alternative is death. The GOP simply has no means of addressing that basic economic problem.

            The above is a block quote from a comment at OTB from a commenter calling himself “pch101”

          • jim_m

            Most people do not require heart surgery.

            Most people can afford basic preventive care but choose not to. Most government health care elects to pay huge costs for preventive care which most studies show are tremendously inefficient and in most cases completely ineffectual at preventing serious illnesses as they are dependent mostly on factors that healthcare institutions have no impact on: Genetics, lifestyle and random mutation.

            So government run healthcare pays huge costs for the most ineffectual low cost treatments and then skimps on the expensive and effectual treatments. An uninformed public is fooled into thinking they are getting something important while they progressively get less and less meaningful healthcare.

          • Brucehenry

            Well it’s your field, and I don’t have any numbers to back it up, but I bet that most people, if they live long enough, eventually need SOMETHING expensive, medically speaking. If not heart surgery then a new knee or a fused disc or dialysis or chemo.

            Anyway as I told Vagabond I’m sure I won’t convert anyone to becoming a single payer advocate here, I only brought it up in response to Pennywit’s anecdote.

          • jim_m

            50% of your total lifetime healthcare expense will come in the last 6 months of your life, if you are the average person. Government healthcare can only manage costs by eliminating as much of that expense as possible. Death Panels are an absolute necessity and anyone denying that simply is either ignorant of the fact or unwilling to acknowledge the truth.

          • Brucehenry

            I do not doubt that statistic, but don’t know if it is true that costs can “ONLY” be managed from that angle. Plus I don’t know why government cost managers would be faced with any more or less difficult challenges than insurance company cost managers. Government already pays for virtually all costs for those dying after age 65.

          • jim_m

            So the obvious answer is that since the government pays most end of life healthcare and most non end of life healthcare is paid for by private insurance the only way government can save money is by curtailing end of life expenses.

          • Brucehenry

            I would certainly support, and wish it had been true in my own mother’s case, doctors being more brutally honest about the chances for recovery of those comatose, kidneys-failing old folks who are just running up the bill for weeks or months before they die anyway. Families could make better decisions if they weren’t coddled and given false hope.

          • jim_m

            My mother in law was given a less than 5% chance of recovering from her sub arachnoid bleed. She made a full recovery. I wish that we would have had a government health system that had just pulled the plug on her but the bitch kept living.

            Yes, people need full information, but government is the last organization that is going to giv e you full disclosure and if you think that the opposite is true you are really stupid.

          • Brucehenry

            Single payer or private insurance, end of life care is out of control. Medicare, which wound up paying nearly all of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in my mom’s case, put ZERO pressure on my family to pull the plug. I don’t know of any family that felt such pressure. On the contrary, we kept getting false hope.

          • jim_m

            Yes, you should have view to the costs of healthcare, but the government has done everything they can to conceal those costs,

            Medicare and Medicaid pay pennies on the dollar. Medicare pays 45% of cost and Medicaid is less than that. Government healthcare is about cost shifting and has never been about cost reduction. Government simply pays less than it costs for healthcare and expects private insurance to make up the difference for providers. Providers that do not have a good enough payor mix go out of business because government payments cannot sustain their financials. Government run systems (like the VA) cut corners and provide substandard care, often resulting in harm or even the deaths of their patients.

            Not a single reform proposed by the left has ever attempted to address the actual cost of healthcare delivery, they have only ever been exercises in cost shifting. These are not answers they are demagoguery.

          • jim_m

            Single payer is a disaster everywhere it is used. Even Sweden is moving away from it. Throughout Europe, they experience far poorer outcomes than we see in the US.

            In Canada the single payer system leads to thousands of unnecessary deaths. A particularly high profile example was the wife of Liam Neeson. After receiving a severe head injury while skiing, she could have been saved if she could have been medevaced via helicopter to another hospital with the facilities to treat her injuries. But the bean counters in Canada determined that helicopters were very inefficient on a per mile usage and so they would only pay for a jet. Of course helicopters are inefficient on per mile cost because they make lots of short trips and they are often called to extract people from remote locations without access to facilities such as airports. Jets by their nature are used exclusively for longer trips and therefore have a better cost profile. The only reason she died was the lack of a helicopter. Had her accident occurred in the US she would still be alive and would have most likely have made a complete recovery without any mental or physical impairment.

            So yeah, single payer is great. As long as you never have to use it.

          • Brucehenry

            You have the facts slightly wrong — well, way fucking wrong — on the Richardson case. And included in this Snopes link are some more scary tropes wingnuts were throwing around in 2009-10.

            http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/seniordeath.asp

          • jim_m

            It still says that she was taken by ambulance to Montreal and that it took over two hours. Such a trip would have been just a few minutes in the US. You can move a patient from ICU bed to ICU bed 40 miles apart in under 10 minutes. In such cases minutes mean everything. While snopes says that “we can never know for sure if it would have made a difference” the reality is that it would have.

            Also, give up on Snopes already It has been discredited on political issues as a far left tilting organization. This is a political issue hence their unwillingness to admit what everyone else is saying is true.

          • Brucehenry

            If by “what everyone else is saying” you mean 8 hours when it was 4, and 2 of those because she initially refused transport, OK.

            Also I don’t know this for a fact but aren’t there places in the US — like some remote mountain ski resorts — where medevac copters are unavailable?

          • jim_m

            No. There is hardly any region that is so far out that you cannot get a helicopter there. Some remote areas are simply remote, but anywhere with any healthcare facilities can get you a medevac. The few places that cannot be reached are places at elevation where you can’t take a helicopter. But if you have a critical access hospital you can get a helicopter in.

          • Brucehenry

            And again, no one in Europe is seriously proposing changing their system to an American-style system.

          • jim_m

            False dichotomy. There is no private insurance industry to fall back on in Europe. You can’t go to a system that you never had the structure for in the first place.

          • Brucehenry

            There was no private steel industry, or private automobile industry, or private film industry, or private anything industry, in formerly communist Eastern Europe until the early 1990s, but there is now.

          • jim_m

            Fact of the matter is that in none of those industries is there a government mandated monopoly like there is in healthcare. In many european nations it is effectively illegal to operate a private health insurance plan.

            And none of that was created by government fiat as you are suggesting is the reason that the European nations don’t have healthcare like the US.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes but politicians could legalize it. Only no one is running on a “Let’s scrap our healthcare system and try Yankee-style healthcare!” platform. NO ONE.

          • jim_m

            Sweden is even if they aren’t calling it that.

          • jim_m

            Bruce, if you need chemotherapy in Canada, you can wait over 3 months to start it. 80% of Colon cancer patients in Canada are considered treatable at time of diagnosis. 40% are considered treatable at time of initial chemotherapy.

            You get what you pay for. Free healthcare is often crap.

            Pick two: Good, Fast, Cheap. Canada chose #1 and 3. The VA chooses #3 and fucks over veterans for 1 and 2. obamacare delivered #2 and it is readily apparent that it will not be #3 and with the rapidly shrinking pool of hospitals and physicians that except these plans #1 is seriously doubtful.

            It appears with private enterprise 2 of the three options are available, but with government healthcare typically you get only #3 if you get any of them at all.

          • Brucehenry

            And yet the people of the countries in which these plans are in effect are unwilling to change them.
            http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nhs-american-doctor-privitisation-i-have-a-message-a7207706.html

            It really doesn’t matter how fast and how good the care is if it is unavailable.

          • jim_m

            That’s just the convenient lie you believe. The truth is that health care is almost always available even to the indigent. I have stated time and again how the hospitals I have worked for had people employed to find funding to pay for services. The only people who went untreated were ones that were looking for experimental therapies or for therapies that were considered highly unlikely to succeed based on published studies.

            Impressive link providing a total n of one incident in an ER. I suppose you believe that one tale is dispositive of the claim that the NHS is the best healthcare on earth despite the thousands of people dying unnecessarily from heart disease and cancer. I suppose you laugh at their deaths you fucking ghoul as you stand on their dead bodies to defend your position. I have actually been to England and seen their third world (their description for the NHS) healthcare.

            And finally, people don’t complain about crappy service they know they cannot change. We could go back to the story of the network news reporter whose wife suffered a DVT and who was urged countless times to move her from the NHS hospital to a private self pay hospital. His story about the difference in the level of care would be eye opening for someone who had any care for the truth. It wouldn’t affect you at all.

          • jim_m

            And here is the real NHS that the UK lives with. Out of money, overcrowded ER’s, and crappy care. It is a perpetual national scandal.

            The run an annual deficit of 1.5 B pounds. They are rated the worst healthcare in Europe. You hold them up as an example because you can’t be bothered to look past the ideological positions spoon fed to you. You don’t think for yourself.

            And you still cannot accept that people would often choose to keep the same crap that they had rather than try the unknown. Much like the slaves that the democrats had were so easily persuaded to stay in relative servitude after the civil war. Your kind counts on this failing in human nature so you can exploit them to their own demise.

          • Brucehenry

            It says several times in your link that NHS is highly valued by the British citizenry. The article is complaining of a lack of funding, both extant and expected, under the Conservative government. The last sentence mentions polls that say the NHS is the most valued institution in the country. Did you even read it?

            BTW the NHS is not supposed to make money, so if it runs a deficit, so what? It is taxpayer funded. And even if it is a big deal that a deficit exists, it is less than 2 billion dollars in a country of 64 million people.

            To address your previous comment about how indigent folks can get treatment, it’s great that the institutions you have worked for try to help people. But what usually happens is that yes, they get that bone set or the asthma attack treated or that EEG for the chest pains or whatever, and then they get the bill. And it is astronomical, they can’t pay more than a fraction of it, and THEIR CREDIT IS RUINED FOREVER. If this happens to a couple in their thirties, say, they will likely never be able to buy a house, their car payments and insurance will be higher than other people’s,. they may even be turned down for jobs, over the next 30 years. They never get ahead after that.

            So yeah, they can get care in an ER even if they don’t have insurance (and under Trumpcare many many more people would have gone without insurance) but it ruins their lives. But hey, fuck them, right? They should just something something bootstraps and quit whining.

          • jim_m

            Dumbass. Of course people highly value healthcare. That doesn’t mean that they think it works well.

            Most credit reporting agencies do not include medical collections in their reporting. Trust me, I’ve been through that when I was unemployed and my wife miscarried.

            You compare costs between the US and UK and claim that the systems are equivalent when they are not. The UK does not provide the equivalent quality of the US system nor does it provide the equivalent timeliness. You can wait for ages to get treated. But then you like it when people die waiting to be treated. That’s why you like the VA system.

            Tell us Bruce: Why do you hate people so much? Why do you so desperately want to fuck our veterans?

          • Miss Fortune

            Wow.

          • No fool like an old ill educated fool…

          • pennywit

            I can deal with single payer, really. But it needs to be paid for, which means taxes — probably much, much higher taxes — and a move away from the employer-provided health insurance paradigm. And I think a lot of people would shit a brick if the federal government assayed that.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes it would but there wouldn’t be deductions from one’s paycheck for premiums. Overhead is lower if there are no profits involved. Folks might not cower in fear of changing jobs or starting a business if they wouldn’t lose coverage.

            There are a lot of good reasons for single-payer, or at least affordable universal coverage, which other advanced countries have realized and acted upon. But I recognize it ain’t gonna happen here — at least not soon. Doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing.

            Like the abolition of the death penalty — it probably won’t happen here, but is still the correct moral choice in my opinion.

          • Get Government and Employers out of the business, end the tax credit.

            Expand HSA and make personal and family insurance plans deductible for individuals.

            Set up a Federal Fund as Insurer of last resort.

            While we’re at it, get employers out of the tax collection business and make the filing deadline the week before election day.

    • Vagabond661

      Trump should write an EO mandating Congress has to be insured by Obamacare.

      • Scalia

        Now that would be fun to watch!

      • Can’t. He can only order the Executive Branch, not the other two co-equal branches.

        • Scalia

          True enough, but it would still be fun to watch their conniption fits.

          • Constitutional Amendment

            Congress shall pass no law not binding upon itself, all laws passed prior to this amendment which are not binding upon Congress shall be amended within five years of this amendments passage to make them binding upon the Congress or shall become null and void.

            That would keep them busy for a while…

  • Retired military

    Good. I hope they start arresting the mayors and police officials for obstruction of justice and hopefully the courts will allow lawsuits for those who are injured by illegal aliens that the cities set free.

  • Retired military

    Word is that Hoover Abedin is trying to get more of Anthony’s Weiner. Hillary is heartbroken.

  • pennywit

    I suspect cities will challenge the Trump administration’s decision. I suspect they may win on a few individual cases, but I’m not sure it’s really that different from the feds using highway funds to force states to raise the drinking age.

    • Scalia

      Yes, they will challenge it, and they will no doubt get a federal judge to twist the law in an attempt to stop it, but since they are clearly breaking the law, they’ll be feeling the heat in short order.

  • Par4Course

    It’s shame when the US Attorney General’s announcement that elected officials must obey the law is a top news story, The Democrats don’t want to change the statutes – they just want to be exempt from the consequences of their own illegal behavior in refusing to enforce the law. We fought a war over federal supremacy. While must functions are betted done by the states, immigration law is clearly a federal responsibility. Local officials should follow the law.

  • Paul Hooson
    • Scalia

      What? Nothing about Russian conspiracies, Paul? Now’s your chance to shine!

      • Paul Hooson

        At this point, Mr. Trump really doesn’t need any William Kristols or Paul Hoosons to be critics. He’s working overtime to sink his own presidency and clear the path for Mike Pence who would be a huge improvement.

        • Scalia

          Yes, of course you believe the polls. You know Gallup doesn’t publish internals, right?

          • Paul Hooson

            I doubt every poll is wrong. Rasmussen actually had Mr. Trump with at least some narrow positive rating until only recently, where the negative rating is now running 12 point stronger.

            Let’s look at the reasons why his in trouble here: His continued wacky Tweets. Ineffective leadership. Public disapproval and failure of his Trumpcare legislation. Continued questions about his administration’s closeness with the Putin regime and Russian intelligence figures. His clouded business and presidential duties. His daughter and son-in-law are supposed to be running his business interests like a blind trust, but instead are playing a major role in his administration. His continued cartoonish braggart style of proclaiming how great he is in the absence of any real leadership qualities or successes.

            More and more, the public is viewing Trump for what he really is, a loud and mostly incompetent braggart who cannot deliver the goods he claims. Maybe some people love to hear his grandpa stories of all the greatness he supposedly possesses now or back then, but at the end of the day, it’s mostly just bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything worthwhile. It’s like watching a house made of cards fall. Even if you like conservative politics, at some point a serious person needs to recognize that Trump is simply the wrong messenger to actually deliver the goods.

            William Kristol,Evan McMullin, George H.W. Bush and some other conservatives had too many doubts about Trump during the general election to support him. Now, there is an erosion of Trump’s 46% voter core, where his support base is starting to crumble as even his own supporters only see failure after failure in addition to continued ethics questions that dog this administration. But, at least his golf game is improving, right?

            Other than an upcoming successful supreme court nominee confirmation, I see few areas where Trump can point to success or using his claimed “leadership qualities” to create successes. This is truly an amateurish effort at forming a government here.

          • Scalia

            You doubt every poll is wrong? Practically all of them were wrong just a few months ago. I didn’t think the press could be more biased against Trump, but since the inauguration, they’ve fallen all over themselves to denigrate him at every turn.

            Face it Paul, you just hate Trump, and you’re using discredited sources to justify your hatred. Hate all you want to, but your reliance on polling at this point is worse than foolish.

          • Paul Hooson

            I disagree as I’ve had some mathematical statistics background in college and know how to read statistics. That being said, Clinton did show a narrow lead in the national polls just as she did gather in her 2.8 million popular vote margin over Trump. While there was daily national poll releases, state polls were conducted less often and did not reflect the late damaging comments by FBI director Comey. However, it seemed implausible that Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would not slip from the Democratic column, which did produce three surprise state results that were a surprise to most good political analysts.

          • Scalia

            I disagree as I’ve had some mathematical statistics background in college and know how to read statistics.

            Evidently not, because if you read the internals of many of those polls, you’d see that they gave too much weight to Democrats. Hardly anybody wanted to be an outlier, so they tipped their scales in Clinton’s favor.

            That being said, Clinton did show a narrow lead in the national polls just as she did gather in her 2.8 million popular vote margin over Trump.

            All in California, Paul. Or, more accurately, Los Angeles and New York City. Take that out, and Trump wins the popular vote. Continuing to harp about the popular vote is like harping about the number of first downs a losing team got in a football game. That has no bearing on the score.

            While there was daily national poll releases, state polls were conducted less often and did not reflect the late damaging comments by FBI director Comey.

            It is irrelevant that they “were conducted less often.” And your attempt to blame Clinton’s loss on Comey is really pathetic. As Marc Thiessen of the Washington Post writes:

            But Democrats had a simpler answer for why Clinton lost. As one Democratic strategist close to Clinton told The Post, it all came down to “one word: Comey.”

            Too bad for Democrats there are zero electoral votes in the State of Denial.

            FBI Director James Comey did not use a private email server to conduct official State Department business and put 110 classified emails on that unsecured server. Comey did not fail to turn over some 14,900 emails to the FBI after assuring Americans that “I turned over everything I was obligated to turn over.” Comey did not lie repeatedly about his emails — first declaring that there was “no classified material” … then that there was nothing “classified at the time” … and then that there was nothing “marked classified” in them.

            Comey did not lie to the American people about Benghazi, publicly blaming the attacks on “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” but privately telling the Egyptian prime minister that “we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.” Comey did not tell Democratic voters that he was against free-trade deals, but then tell Brazilian bankers that his dream was for “hemispheric … open trade and open borders” — or get caught admitting that he has “both a public and a private position” on issues.

            […]

            Why did Hillary Clinton lose? Not because of James Comey. She lost because exit polls showed that 54 percent of voters believe that she is “corrupt.” To the elites in Washington, her corruption was apparently no big deal, at least not compared with their horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency. But Americans correctly saw her corruption as corrosive to our democracy and were appalled by the inability of the Washington establishment to see this.

            The only way you can prove your Comey hypothesis is to show via exit polling (at the very least) that the number of voters swayed by Comey’s late letter would have turned the election in Clinton’s favor. Anything short of that is just sour grapes on your part.

            I’m not sure what discredited sources you are referring to here…

            Many, you’re pretty thick. If you knew how to read English, you’d see that the “discredited sources” you worship are the very polling agencies that blew the election.

            The rest of your tripe has nothing to do with the accuracy of polling—which is what I was replying to!

          • Paul Hooson

            Michael Flynn has offered to testify to the FBI about the Russia issues with the Trump Campaign in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Your thoughts on this?

          • jim_m

            Given the example of Scooter Libby, any intelligent person would only agree to testify under oath if they were given immunity from prosecution.

          • Brucehenry

            Gee Flynn doesn’t seem to think so — or didn’t before his own ass was in hot water.

  • Retired military

    And another blow to David and the “peak oil” folks.

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/03/27/new-crude-found-in-uk-waters/

    The latest find adds to a series of successful wells drilled by Hurricane in a geological formation that analysts say looks likely to be the biggest new oil discovery beneath UK waters this century

  • Retired military

    Nope. Google it.

  • pennywit

    Seattle has challenged the law:

    In its lawsuit, the city will argue Trump’s order violates the 10th Amendment of the Constitution by attempting to make local governments enforce federal immigration law.

    Seattle also will argue the executive order violates the Taxing and Spending Clause of the Constitution by holding hostage, for matters of immigration enforcement, funds not directly related to immigration enforcement.

    Though the Trump administration has yet to withhold grants from Seattle or take action against the city in any way, the city will argue it has standing to sue because the executive order has created uncertainty and made it difficult for Murray to draw up his next city budget.

    Here’s the petition seeking declaratory relief.

    • Scalia

      Your first link doesn’t work.

    • Scalia

      As predicted. And your take on their arguments?

      • pennywit

        No take on their arguments at the moment. I haven’t had time to read through their brief.

      • pennywit

        Oh, yeah. One other take. Project management sucks. I spend most of my day in phone calls, meetings, and organizational emails. I can’t get real work done. And worst of all, I have less time to read Wizbang.

        • Scalia

          Given your penchant for tormenting Walter, I’ll try to call some DC friends to get you a job interrogating terrorists. After a few Cleveland Browns jokes, they’ll sing like birds.

          • pennywit

            Unfortunately, that’s barred by the Geneva Conventions.

  • jim_m

    Prediction: McCain comes out against killing the filibuster, because he knows that preserving the filibuster will mean that end of the Trump agenda. McCain’s only relevance as a politician is as the internal opposition to the GOP. If he allows the filibuster to die he has no power left in DC.

    Prediction 2: Graham is waffling on the filibuster and he and McCain will constitute the two votes from the GOP against doing away with it. The White House will not want to be seen as having Pence cast the deciding vote to kill the filibuster so it remains and Gorsuch nomination goes down to defeat at the hands of McCain and Graham.

    • Scalia

      Well, so far they’re holding firm. However, I won’t fee comfortable until after the vote is over.

      • jim_m

        I trust Graham in this more than I do McCain. McCain’s sole power in the Senate comes with his ability to cast the vote against the GOP. With the filibuster gone that is sharply reduced.

        • Scalia

          I’m with you there. That’s why I won’t breathe easily until this thing is over.

  • pennywit

    Charles Krauthammer thinks single-payer healthcare is coming to the United States:

    A broad national consensus is developing that health care is indeed a right. This is historically new. And it carries immense implications for the future. It suggests that we may be heading inexorably to a government-run, single-payer system. It’s what Barack Obama once admitted he would have preferred but didn’t think the country was ready for. It may be ready now.

    As Obamacare continues to unravel, it won’t take much for Democrats to abandon that Rube Goldberg wreckage and go for the simplicity and the universality of Medicare-for-all. Republicans will have one last chance to try to persuade the country to remain with a market-based system, preferably one encompassing all the provisions that, for procedural reasons, had been left out of their latest proposal.

    Don’t be surprised, however, if, in the end, single-payer wins out. Indeed, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if Donald Trump, reading the zeitgeist, pulls the greatest 180 since Disraeli “dished the Whigs” in 1867 (by radically expanding the franchise) and joins the single-payer side.

    • Brucehenry

      If the “zeitgeist” is indeed in favor of single-payer I will be surprised but pleased. I never thought, in 2004, that the “zeitgeist” would include same-sex marriage and majority support for transgender rights in 2017, but here we are.

    • Vagabond661

      The costs to consumers for single payer would be enormous. That alone should keep The Donald from joining with Democrats.

      • pennywit

        That’s one reason that I’ve thought — for years now, actually — that it’s better to let states take on healthcare reform. If the people of Vermont want single payer, they can vote it in and damn well pay for it. If the people of Ohio want to mandate free mental-health care for hometown football fans, also go for it.

        • Scalia

          You really, REALLY like to rub the salt in, don’t you?

          • pennywit

            My own team is a steaming pile of dog poop at the moment, thanks to front-office machinations. Schadenfreude is all I have left.

    • WHO’S THE BUSTER

      It will be the Democratic platform in 2020. It will, however, be paired with controls on provider costs. Right now everyone is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and hoping it does not sink.

  • b l

    I fail to see why immigration status can be its own special area of law where breaking it is not only tolerated, but supported by local governments.
    Would they look so kindly on “undocumented accounts”? “Undocumented construction” or even “Undocumented fishing”?
    What if an uncertified accountant doesn’t want to disclose undocumented income on the tax forms of undocumented immigrants?

    • Scalia

      There’s too much precedent to force state compliance, but the president can ask Congress to grant funds to cities conditioned upon their compliance with immigration law. If they don’t want to cooperate, fine, but they don’t have a right to federal money. Congress can and should withhold funding to such cities.

  • Vagabond661

    For the record, I believe David Robertson is the most insighful and wise blogger I have ever read……I secretly I agree with everything BruceHenry has ever said.

    • Brucehenry

      Confession is good for the soul

      • Vagabond661

        It’s the best April Fool’s I could think of.