On Tuesday, Attorney General William Barr was questioned at a congressional hearing by Dem. Rep Lucy McBath of Georgia, who attacked him for supporting President Trump’s position against the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and used her own status as a breast cancer survivor to buttress her case. When Barr responded that he had two children of his own who are cancer survivors, McBath cut him off, iterating that his position was “playing politics.”
McBath began her query of the attorney general:
<blockquote>Sir, just a few months ago, in May, you said that you would be taking the president’s position in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act. When asked if you will still take that position, even if it means, and I quote, “Stripping millions of Americans of their healthcare in the middle of a pandemic,” you stated that the case would not be argued until October and that the president expects to fix and replace Obamacare with a better system.
Attorney General Barr, let’s be very, very clear: as public health officials and data have shown us, this pandemic is simply not going away. Just last week it was reported that one hospital was planning on sending coronavirus patients home to die due to limited resources to treat them. So we’re still facing an extremely critical and extremely serious situation. And even if you expect the president to figure out a new plan by October, the president has not yet put in place another system, nor is there any guarantee that he will do so by October as you “expect.”
So when you say you expect the president to figure out a new plan, you are taking a risk with millions of Americans’ lives. You are risking the lives of millions. People who will not be covered for preexisting conditions if the Supreme Court agrees with your position. Civil servants in your own department have disagreed with you on this matter. In fact, I’m introducing a statement by one of the lead attorneys on the ACA case, Joel McElvaine, who resigned in protest when your department refused to defend the law as it is required.
In my district, the sixth district of Georgia, congressional district, there are over 300,000 people that have preexisting conditions, and I sir, am one of them: a two-time breast cancer survivor. Our state is continuing to battle hard against a resurgence in COVID-19 cases.
So I’m asking you, sir, not to gamble with American lives. Not to gamble with my life. And I’d like you to confirm that if the president has no other plan in place by October, you will reverse course and drop your position that — I quote you directly — “the entire ACA must fall.”</blockquote>
The attorney general responded by noting that he has two children who are cancer survivors.
&#8220;I have two children who are cancer survivors, so I feel very strongly about this issue as a matter of policy,&#8221; said Barr. &#8220;And I believe that the president’s made clear that he will ensure—&#8221;
But before Barr could finish his response, McBath interjected, &#8220;Sir, please answer my question. Will you stop playing politics with Americans health care in the middle of a pandemic?&#8221;
&#8220;I’m not playing politics,&#8221; said Barr. &#8220;I’m a lawyer. I’m not in charge of healthcare policy.&#8221;
“Will you reverse your course?&#8221; said McBath, shouting over him. &#8220;Will you reverse your course and make sure that millions of Americans like me, that depend on healthcare and treatment to stay alive, will you reverse your course to make sure that we have the ability to be able to live in this country freely with quality healthcare?”
&#8220;People will have the healthcare protection and it will be accomplished either if I lose — if the government loses the case&#8230;&#8221; Barr replied calmly.
&#8220;I take this as a no,&#8221; McBath said, again before he could finish.
&#8220;&#8230;if the Supreme Court strikes it down&#8230;,&#8221; Barr continued.
&#8220;I take this as a no,&#8221; McBath repeated.
&#8220;&#8230;based on history&#8230;,&#8221; said Barr.
&#8220;I’d like to go on,&#8221; said McBath.
<iframe src="https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c4895848/user-clip-mcbath" width="512" height="330" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

George Floyd&#8217;s Brother Testifies Before House On Policing And Law Enforcement Accountability

WATCH: Dem Rep. Cuts Off AG Barr When He Notes His Children Are Cancer Survivors

Lucy McBath

Obamacare

William Barr

The Department of Justice is asking the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, as unconstitutional after Congress effectively cut out the individual mandate.
The DOJ filed a brief with the Supreme Court on Thursday, arguing that since Congress negated the penalty for not having health insurance, the law can no longer be justified under the legislature’s power to tax. In 2017, Congress passed a Republican-led tax bill that gutted the ACA’s individual mandate, reducing it to 0% of a person’s income. The new rule took effect last year.
“The entire ACA thus must fall with the individual mandate,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in the DOJ brief, according to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-invalidate-affordable-care-act-11593148136">The Wall Street Journal</a>. “The individual mandate is no longer a valid exercise of Congress’s legislative authority in light of Congress’s elimination of the penalty for noncompliance.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a <a href="https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/62520-3">statement</a> slamming the Trump administration’s move, highlighting the political danger of President Trump attacking Obamacare amid a pandemic and months before he is up for reelection.
“President Trump and the Republicans’ campaign to rip away the protections and benefits of the Affordable Care Act in the middle of the coronavirus crisis is an act of unfathomable cruelty,” Pelosi said on Thursday. “If President Trump gets his way, 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions will lose the ACA’s lifesaving protections and 23 million Americans will lose their health coverage entirely. There is no legal justification and no moral excuse for the Trump Administration’s disastrous efforts to take away Americans’ health care.”
Former President Obama with a Democratic-controlled Congress passed his signature piece of legislation in 2010. The GOP tried and failed to repeal and replace Obamacare in 2017, but lawmakers attached a provision to a tax cut bill later in the year that effectively stripped the ACA of the mandate.
A group of 20 GOP state officials sued the federal government in February 2018 for the courts to strike down the law as unconstitutional. Democratic officials in 17 other states responded in a court filing arguing to keep the law in place. The Trump administration has sided with the plaintiffs against itself. A federal court in Texas sided with the GOP, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, one of the Democratic officials fighting to keep the ACA, issued a statement Thursday responding to the Justice Department’s filing.
“Now is not the time to rip away our best tool to address very real and very deadly health disparities in our communities,” Becerra said, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/obamacare-trump-administration-supreme-court.html">The New York Times</a>. “This fight comes at the most crucial time. The death toll from the coronavirus today is greater than the death toll of the Vietnam War.”
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

President Trump

Trump Again Targets Obamacare, Asks SCOTUS To Strike It Down

Department of Justice

Donald Trump

Speaking on MSNBC, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the architect of Obamacare, stated that until a vaccine for the coronavirus is ready, with most estimates ranging from 12-18 months, people in the United States should eschew &#8220;conferences, concerts, sporting events, religious services, dinner in a restaurant.&#8221; Emanuel posited that all the “economic pain” such measures would cause must be worth it, arguing, “The truth is we have no choice.”
Emanuel began, “No one is immune to the COVID-19 virus. It threatens all of us. But while we are all experiencing the same pandemic, we are not experiencing it in the same way. The first dividing line is whether you or someone you love has gotten sick. Many Americans have not yet seen firsthand what devastation a positive test can inflict. Another dividing line is whether you have a job that lets you stay at home, working as you juggle child care and video chats.&#8221;
Emanuel said, “60 million Americans are still out there not sheltering in place and instead tirelessly working to keep everything going for the rest of us. You keep the electricity flowing and the internet running, food and groceries moving. You are putting your own health on the line to ensure the rest of us are living as normally as possible. And then there are the tens of millions of Americans who have lost jobs and businesses, or who fear that they&#8217;re just about to. Your anxiety about the virus is coupled with worry over having a paycheck, covering the mortgage, keeping the lights on, and buying food.”
He continued, “Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications. I know that&#8217;s dreadful news to hear. How are people supposed to find work if this goes on in some form for a year and a half? Is all that economic pain worth trying to stop COVID-19? The truth is we have no choice.”
Emanuel speculated on the numbers of deaths without physical distancing and like measures, stating, “If we prematurely end that physical distancing and the other measures keeping it at bay, deaths could skyrocket into the hundreds of thousands if not a million. We cannot return to normal until there&#8217;s a vaccine. Conferences, concerts, sporting events, religious services, dinner in a restaurant, none of that will resume until we find a vaccine, a treatment, or a cure.”
He asserted that his perspective was the realistic one:
<blockquote>One thing I&#8217;ve learned as a cancer doctor is that it&#8217;s wrong to paint an overly rosy picture in order to maintain a patient&#8217;s hope. It&#8217;s wrong because it fails. It&#8217;s false. Biology and disease are formidable opponents that inevitably tell us the truth. We cannot relieve the oppression of this pandemic until we are realistic. We need to prepare ourselves for this to last 18 months or so and for the toll that it will take. We need to develop a long-term solution based on those facts. It has to account for what we are losing while this fight goes on, things like schooling and income and contact with our friends and extended family.</blockquote>
He concluded:
<blockquote>The crisis is not going to go away in a few weeks or after the 30-day plan comes to an end. Although COVID-19 is affecting us in different ways, we have to be up to it and fight together.</blockquote>
Video below:
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pP3-hE-DrSc" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Transcription from <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/07/ezekiel_emanuel_us_must_stay_locked_down_for_12-18_months_until_theres_a_vaccine.html">Real Clear Politics</a>.

Klick Health Ideas Exchange

WATCH: Obamacare Architect Suggests No Religious Services, Dinner In Restaurants For 12-18 Months

Coronavirus

Ezekiel Emanuel

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could conceivably rid the nation of ObamaCare.
Two petitions revolving around Obamacare,  one by Democratic states and one from Republican states, want the Supreme Court to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that invalidated Obamacare. The Court will hear oral arguments next fall.
<a href="http://amylhowe.com/2020/03/02/justices-grant-affordable-care-act-petitions/">Amy Howe</a> explains:
<blockquote>In 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with the court’s four more liberal justices that the mandate was constitutional because the penalty imposed on individuals who did not buy health insurance was a tax, which the Constitution allows Congress to impose. But in 2017, Congress enacted an amendment to the ACA that set the penalty for not buying health insurance at zero – but left the rest of the ACA in place. That change led to the dispute that is now before the court: A group of states led by Texas (along with several individuals) went to federal court, where they argued that because the penalty for not buying health insurance is zero, it is no longer a tax and the mandate is therefore unconstitutional. And the mandate is such an integral part of the ACA, they contended, that the rest of the law must be struck down as well.</blockquote>
<a href="https://apnews.com/eb725376830b13e2d6f89451d4f5191b">AP added</a>, “U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed, adding that the mandate was so central to the law that without it the rest of the law must fall, too.”
Last December, the 5th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision that Obamacare is unconstitutional, but the court of appeals sent the case back to the lower court. In January, the Democratic states asked the Supreme Court to supersede the lower courts and rule whether Obamacare is constitutional, but the Supreme Court declined.
Howe notes, “In February the federal government, Texas and other states and the individuals challenging the mandate all filed briefs opposing review. They stressed that the court should stay out of the dispute for now and instead wait for the lower courts to rule.”
But on Monday, the Supreme Court granted California’s petition for review. The justices will have to decide whether the Obamacare mandate, which Justice John Roberts voted for along with the four liberal justices on the court, is unconstitutional. The Court also granted Texas’ petition, which wants the Court to declare the district court correct when it decided Obamacare was invalid.
Roberts’ decision in 2012 to join the liberal judges on the Court and vote that the Obamacare mandate was constitutional shocked the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the other conservative justices on the Court. Jan Crawford of CBS News <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/2/">explained</a> at the time:
<blockquote>Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They&#8217;ve explained that they don&#8217;t want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal. But Roberts pays attention to media coverage …
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court &#8211; and to Roberts&#8217; reputation &#8211; if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld. Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, &#8220;wobbly,&#8221; the sources said.</blockquote>
&nbsp;

Barack Obama Is Sworn In As 44th President Of The United States

SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Case That Might Invalidate Obamacare

Barack Obama

John Roberts

Supreme Court

On Saturday, December 28, former Vice President and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden held a campaign event in Washington, Iowa.
During a question and answer session, a young man asked Biden about his support for Obamacare:
<blockquote>I just need this question. So we&#8217;re going to take a trip back 2008 real quick. During the run-up to the passage of Obamacare, President Obama promised my father that if he likes his plan, he can keep his plan, and that his insurance will be cheaper. After passage, his plan was no longer allowed and his insurance costs doubled. Since you supported the plan, were you lying to my dad? Or did you not understand the bill you supported?</blockquote>
Biden began his answer with a what appears to have been a joke, the offered an incoherent ramble:
<blockquote>No, look, the fact is that what I&#8217;m talking about now is that when – because I get asked the question – since, what I do is I&#8217;d add a public option to the existence of Obamacare, meaning that a Medicare-like option is available if in fact you – but there&#8217;s 160 million people out there who&#8217;ve negotiated a health care plan with their employer that they like and they don&#8217;t want to have to give up like Medicare for All requires. It says you have to give it up. You cannot have any private insurance.</blockquote>
Biden then told the young man that costs have “gone down.”
<blockquote>What happened is, and by the way, the cost of Obamacare has gone down in the last two years, not up as you probably know, you seem to know this, number one. </blockquote>
Then, he talked about the fact that people shouldn’t be forced to give up their insurance plans:
<blockquote>Number two is that when you put yourself in a position of – I have faith in the American people – that if you&#8217;ve worked and given up significant portions of your salary over the last two, five, 10, 12 years to get a healthcare plan you like that you negotiated with an employer, then in fact, you should not be forced to give it up. You should have the choice. If you want to keep it, you can keep it. And if in fact the employer eliminates the plan, which he could, eliminates the plan, then you&#8217;d have the option to buy into a subsidized plan of Obamacare.</blockquote>
Following this, Biden spoke for another four minutes before arriving back at a semblance of an answer in which he noted that “no one did understand Obamacare.”
<blockquote>We&#8217;ve changed a lot of things for the better, and we&#8217;ve tried under five Democratic presidents, tried to change those things, and people say, &#8220;Well Biden, why now do you think you can add the public option and why can you further subsidize it?&#8221;
Well, because people, there&#8217;s two ways people know when something is important. One, when it&#8217;s so clear when it&#8217;s passed that everybody understands it – and no one did understand Obamacare, including the way it was rolled out.
And the gentleman&#8217;s right, he said, &#8220;You could keep your doctor if you wanted to,” and you couldn&#8217;t keep your doctor if you wanted to necessarily. He&#8217;s dead right about that. But the fact is that when something&#8217;s taken away, when you – people didn&#8217;t know. I used to say to President Obama, &#8220;Mr. President, why don&#8217;t you take a victory lap? You got this passed. Let people know exactly what&#8217;s happened.&#8221;
&#8230;And he&#8217;d say, &#8220;We don&#8217;t have time to take a victory lap. We have too many things we have to do.&#8221; So people didn&#8217;t know, and we lost the House of Representatives after that passed. And people attributed to the fact that Obamacare passed and that was one of the arguments made, whether it&#8217;s true or not.</blockquote>
In the end, Biden simply didn’t answer the young man’s very simple question.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kIKPlOgaCW8" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Former President Obama’s promise that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” was ranked as Politifact’s 2013 “<a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/">Lie of the Year</a>.”
After the Obamacare rollout disaster, and at least 37 documented instances of Obama using the “keep your plan” phrase “without caveats,” reports Politifact, the president was forced to concede that what he claimed just wasn’t true.
Speaking with NBC’s Chuck Todd in November 2013, Obama <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/53492840#53492840">said</a>: “We weren’t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place, and I want to do everything we can to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they were before this law happened. And I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.”

Joe Biden.

Biden Dodges ‘You Can Keep Your Plan’ Obamacare Question: ‘Were You Lying … Or Did You Not Understand The Bill You Supported?’

Health Care

Joe Biden

A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is based in New Orleans, ruled on Wednesday that Obamacare&#8217;s individual mandate, which required everyone to have health insurance, was unconstitutional in its present form.
&#8220;However, the appeals court ruling largely ducked the central question of whether the Affordable Care Act remained valid after Congress removed the penalty for not having health insurance and it sent the case back to a Texas federal judge who previously ruled the entire law was unconstitutional to reconsider how much of it could survive,&#8221; Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/18/court-finds-obamacare-mandate-unconstitutional-sends-case-back-to-lower-court-087389">reported</a>. &#8220;The high-stakes ruling keeps the legal threat to Obamacare alive while reducing the likelihood the Supreme Court could render a final verdict on the law before the 2020 elections.&#8221;
The 5th panel wrote, “The individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power. On the severability question, we remand to the district court to provide additional analysis of the provisions of the ACA as they currently exist.”
&#8220;Having concluded that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, we must next determine whether, or how much of, the rest of the ACA is severable from that constitutional defect,” the ruling said.
“It may still be that none of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, even after this inquiry is concluded,” the panel added. “It may be that all of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate. It may also be that some of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, and some is not.”
U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor had ruled last December that the entire Obamacare law, known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), was unconstitutional.
&#8220;The Fifth Circuit&#8217;s extensive and correct analysis of the constitutional question ought to humble those who were so quick to smear Judge O&#8217;Connor, a good man, as a partisan hack when he ruled as he did one year ago,&#8221; said Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a constitutional attorney by training and a former Fifth Circuit law clerk. &#8220;Those hysterical legal commentators and &#8216;scholars&#8217; ought to now apologize to Judge O&#8217;Connor.&#8221;
Following O&#8217;Connor&#8217;s ruling, Trump tweeted: &#8220;As I predicted all along, Obamacare has been struck down as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL disaster! Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions. Mitch and Nancy, get it done!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
As I predicted all along, Obamacare has been struck down as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL disaster! Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions. Mitch and Nancy, get it done!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1073761497866747904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Far-left California Attorney General Xavier Becerra responded to the news by writing on Twitter: &#8220;The President just got the gift he wanted — uncertainty in the healthcare system and a pathway to repeal — so that healthcare for seniors, workers, and families secured under the #ACA can be yanked away. &#8230; California will move swiftly to challenge this decision, because this could mean the difference between life and death for so many Americans and their families.&#8221;
Democrat Senator Chris Murphy (CT), responded by writing, &#8220;The 5th Circuit Court just ruled against the Affordable Care Act – dragging out a Republican lawsuit that jeopardizes health care protections for millions of Americans. Republicans own this. They owe Americans an explanation. It&#8217;s time for the Supreme Court to act.&#8221;
Democrat Senator Bob Casey (PA) tweeted: &#8220;The 5th Circuit Court’s “decision” could still lead to millions of Americans losing their health care. This uncertainty is only possible because the Trump Admin and Republican members of Congress aided and abetted this obscene lawsuit. This is health care sabotage at its finest.&#8221;
This report has been updated to include additional information.

Obama

Federal Appeals Court Rules Obamacare Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional

Constitution

Judicial Branch

Judiciary

Lawsuit

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden showed that he lacked even basic knowledge about Obamacare — which was passed while he served as vice president in the Obama administration — during an interview with Telemundo, falsely claiming that the law covers illegal aliens.
Biden&#8217;s lack of knowledge about former President Barack Obama&#8217;s so-called signature achievement is concerning considering the fact that the basic facts are laid out on the Obamacare website, which states that the only eligible persons are U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and lawfully present immigrants.
The website specifically <a href="https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/coverage/">states</a>:
<div id="tab-content">
<blockquote>Undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible to buy Marketplace health coverage, or for premium tax credits and other savings on Marketplace plans. But they may apply for coverage on behalf of documented individuals.</blockquote>
&#8220;Last June when I &#8212; NBC and Telemundo moderated that first debate with you &#8212; I didn&#8217;t &#8212; I don&#8217;t recall your clear answer,&#8221; Jose Diaz-Balart said. &#8220;Under your plan, should &#8212; would the 11, 12 million undocumented immigrants that live in the United States, that have been many for &#8212; generations, would they have access to health insurance?&#8221;
&#8220;Yes,&#8221; Biden responded. &#8220;Yes. They &#8212; they &#8212; if they can buy into the system like everybody else, that&#8217;s like the &#8211;&#8221;
Diaz-Balart fired back, &#8220;Because, you know, in ACA they can&#8217;t.&#8221;
&#8220;Yeah, yeah, I know. Well, they can, that&#8217;s my point,&#8221; Biden falsely claimed. &#8220;They&#8217;d continue to be able to do that.&#8221;
&#8220;They cannot under the &#8212; Obamacare,&#8221; Diaz-Balart tried to get Biden to understand.
Biden responded, &#8220;Well, and that&#8217;s my point. They will, though. They will be able to buy in just like &#8212; look, e &#8212; remember all the talk about how all the &#8212; all &#8212; all &#8212; all the &#8212; the immigration and the flow of people into the country is gonna ruin Social Security, it&#8217;s extended Social Security because people are paying. Undocumenteds [sic] who are working are paying in &#8212; on their paychecks into Social Security. The same exact thing happens in terms of Obamacare, will become Bidencare, which is&#8211; building out Obamacare, making it &#8212; putting more money into Obamacare &#8212; to make it more affordable, number one, and providing a public option. And they&#8217;d be able to buy in just like anyone else could.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Joe Biden falsely says illegal immigrants are covered under Obamacare, then is corrected by Telemundo’s José Díaz-Balart. 
Then Biden says that under his health care plan illegal immigrants will be covered.<a href="https://t.co/EGLyFV5KkJ">pic.twitter.com/EGLyFV5KkJ</a>
&mdash; Tommy Pigott (@TCPigott) <a href="https://twitter.com/TCPigott/status/1203048164569337861?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Biden then was confronted about his son, Hunter Biden, working on the board of Burisma while he was vice president, a subject that Biden exploded at a voter over earlier in the week, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/05/biden-calls-iowa-voter-damn-liar-and-fat-after-ukraine-accusation.html">calling</a> the voter &#8220;fat&#8221; and &#8220;a damn liar&#8221; and then challenging him to a push-up contest.
Biden denied that his son made a lot of money while working in Ukraine and then stated that it was not wrong for his son to be conducting business dealings in countries where Biden was conducting work on behalf of the U.S. government, including Ukraine and China.
After being repeatedly pressed, Diaz-Balart asked, &#8220;Is it wrong?&#8221;
Biden refused to answer the question and instead deflected to attacking President Donald Trump, saying, &#8220;Well, I&#8217;m not &#8212; look, here&#8217;s what I&#8217;m not gonna do. I&#8217;m not gonna &#8212; and I know you&#8217;re not intending to do this, play the game to take the eye off the culprit. The culprit here is what may have looked bad but wasn&#8217;t anything wrong is totally different than whether a president has held up $400 million in aid that &#8212; for a Ukrainian military when Ukrainians are dying, getting shot dead by Russians in uniforms without marks on them in the Donbass, that is criminal. That is &#8212; can you imagine that? It&#8217;s like [UNINTEL] sayin&#8217;, it&#8217;s like sayin&#8217; to a governor in a state, &#8216;You have a tragedy, unless you agree to support me next time I run I&#8217;m not gonna bring any &#8212; I&#8217;m not gonna allow any federal aid to come to help your citizens.&#8217; Come on.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Joe Biden refuses to admit it was wrong for his son, Hunter Biden, to serve on Burisma’s board while he was vice president.
Reminder, even people at President Obama&#39;s State Department raised concerns about the appearance of a conflict of interest.<a href="https://t.co/DndQNXoj3L">pic.twitter.com/DndQNXoj3L</a>
&mdash; Tommy Pigott (@TCPigott) <a href="https://twitter.com/TCPigott/status/1203054500115820544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>

WATCH: Biden Lacks Basic Knowledge About Obamacare, Struggles When Confronted

Telemundo

The modern-day Democratic Party is, on any number of issues, simply <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-democratic-party-has-become-parody-itself-josh-hammer">beyond parody</a>. The far-left tail that is the AOC-led &#8220;Squad&#8221; has long come to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-aocs-squad-will-destroy-democrats-2020-josh-hammer">wag the dog</a> that is the institutional party apparatus, and perhaps nowhere is this dynamic more obvious than in the intersection of economics and mathematics that sentient human beings have hitherto referred to as &#8220;sanity.&#8221;
In the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-bernie-sanders-entire-worldview-grotesquely-josh-hammer">Communist</a> &#8211; VT) was notable for proposing sundry pie-in-the-sky socialistic nostrums that far outflanked eventual nominee Hillary Clinton on the hard left. In the clown car pile-up that is the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Sanders has once again outdone himself. As economic policy expert Brian Riedl recently broke down for <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/bernie-sanders-expensive-spending-proposals">City Journal</a>, Sanders&#8217; &#8220;current plans would cost as much as $97.5 trillion over the next decade,&#8221; and government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product would rise to an astonishing 70% — or three and a half times the 20% that has been the frequent post-World War II <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S">American norm</a>. The single priciest component of Sanders&#8217; hammer-and-sickle agenda, as the erstwhile Soviet Union honeymooner has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNP-AQlVZKM">conceded</a>, is his bankrupting &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; plan — to the tune of $30–$40 trillion over a ten-year timeframe.
What is simply remarkable is that Sanders&#8217; &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; price tag now looks positively conservative compared to the newly unveiled plan of 2020 Democratic presidential primary rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ashe Schow <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elizabeth-warrens-plan-to-fund-medicare-for-all-is-a-complete-fantasy">noted</a> earlier today, Warren&#8217;s new &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; proposal &#8220;would cost $52 trillion over 10 years.&#8221; Proving even more thoroughly that the quixotic Democratic Party mind lies somewhere between the idyllic river of dragon dreams and the paradisal valley of unicorn farts, Warren doubled down on the disingenuous mathematical impossibility that she peddled ad nauseam at the last presidential primary debate and informed us gullible plebeians that her plan will somehow <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01/775335150/read-elizabeth-warrens-plan-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all">not result in middle class tax hikes</a>.
Hmmmm.
As Riedl has <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes">previously</a> <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-deficits-on-the-rise-and-not-because-of-tax-cuts-democrats-will-make-it-worse">demonstrated</a>, there is simply no world in which this exorbitant level of federal spending can be sustained. It is a complete and utter mathematical impossibility. Heck, we as a nation cannot even fiscally sustain our own previously pledged commitments to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-republicans-need-be-adults-and-talk-about-josh-hammer">bankrupting entitlement programs</a>!
But sure, what&#8217;s another $52 trillion in health care going to do, once we&#8217;re all already heading straight for a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/international/greece-debt-crisis-euro.html">Greece-style</a> sovereign debt abyss? At this point, the entirety of both the Democratic Party and &#8220;progressive&#8221; economic firmament seem to be unanimously in thrall to the <a href="https://economics21.org/modern-monetary-theory-rational-inflation">economically illiterate</a> fiction that is co-called &#8220;modern monetary theory&#8221; (MMT) — the nonsensical notion, as <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-4588060">explained</a> by Investopedia, that governments that print their own currency &#8220;do not need taxes or borrowing for spending&#8221; because &#8220;they can print as much as they need and are the monopoly issuers of the currency.&#8221; Intellectually honest Democrats would publicly proclaim their fealty to the MMT cabal, in lieu of constantly equivocating when pressed about how they might possibly fund their fiscally ruinous and un-fundable schemes.
Sober-minded citizens have already seen the 2020 Democrats lurch to the far left on all sorts of bread-and-butter cultural and civilizational issues — from border security to religion to abortion to transgenderism. But on perhaps no issue is this crop of hucksters more transparently nutty than on their various plans for perhaps the most rudimentary political issue of all: Government spending.

October Democratic primary debate

HAMMER: The Democratic Presidential Primary Is A Race To The Fiscally Illiterate Bottom

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Economy

Leftism

Medicare

Progressivism

Even as Democrats inveigh against President Trump for his alleged norm-shattering and contempt for the rule of law, their health care plans show a growing embrace of authoritarianism. For instance, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) recently <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-09-25/schiff-trumps-comments-a-classic-mafia-like-shakedown" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-09-25/schiff-trumps-comments-a-classic-mafia-like-shakedown&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGwkxR4Q6ZOFaNqd4M8yJdUm134cA">dubbed</a> the president’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “a classic mafia-like shakedown.” He knows of which he speaks, because the Democratic Party agenda on health care now includes threats to destroy any entities failing to comply with government-dictated price controls.
The latest evidence comes from Colorado, where several government agencies recently submitted a <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/HB19-1004%20Draft%20Report%20Colorado%20State%20Coverage%20Option%20and%20Appendix.pdf" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/HB19-1004%2520Draft%2520Report%2520Colorado%2520State%2520Coverage%2520Option%2520and%2520Appendix.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFDkt31ZlobGZ-HQwefFU-NC7beBQ">draft report</a> regarding the creation of a “state option” for health insurance. The plan would not create a state-run health insurer; instead, it would see agencies dragooning private sector firms to comply with government diktats.
The plan would “require insurance carriers that offer plans in a major market,” whether individual, small group, or large group, “to offer the state option as well.” In these state-mandated plans that insurers must offer, carriers would have to abide by stricter controls on their administrative costs — in the form of medical loss ratio requirements — than those dictated by Obamacare.
For medical providers, the Colorado plan would use “payment benchmarks” to cap reimbursement amounts for doctors and hospitals. And if hospitals decline to accept these government-imposed price controls, the report ominously says that “the state may implement measures to ensure health systems participate.”
In comments to reporters, Colorado officials made clear their intent to coerce providers into this price-controlled system. Insurance Commissioner Michael Conway <a href="https://coloradosun.com/2019/10/09/colorado-health-public-option-hospitals/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://coloradosun.com/2019/10/09/colorado-health-public-option-hospitals/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEdfFeIqjhxySRoTgjO7RycSEOHhA">admitted</a> that “[i]f our hospital systems don’t participate, this won’t work &#8230; [w]e can’t allow that to happen.” The head of Colorado’s Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, Kim Bimestefer, <a href="https://coloradosun.com/2019/10/07/colorado-public-health-insurance-option-proposal/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://coloradosun.com/2019/10/07/colorado-public-health-insurance-option-proposal/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGvUest7eeWAQmR2Zl20j5M7mzlAw">said</a> that “if we feel that the hospitals are not going to participate, we will require their participation.”
State officials did not elaborate on the mechanisms they would use to compel participation in the state option. But they could attempt to require hospitals and insurers to participate in the new plan to maintain their license to operate in Colorado — a likely unconstitutional condition of licensure.
In threatening this level of coercion — agree to price controls, or we’ll shut down your business — Colorado Gov. Jared Polis imitated his fellow Democrat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi’s proposed drug pricing bill, up for a vote in the House as soon as next month, would impose excise taxes of up to 95% of a drug’s sale price if companies refuse to “negotiate” with the federal government.
In its <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-10/hr3ltr.pdf" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-10/hr3ltr.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHtCPW1KJ1eddfASQamnbb-cBFA-g">analysis</a> of Pelosi’s legislation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) noted that, because drug makers could not deduct the 95% excise tax for income tax purposes, “the combination of income taxes and excise taxes on the sales could cause the drug manufacturer to lose money if the drug was sold in the United States.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, CBO concluded that the excise tax would not generate “any significant increase in revenues,” as “manufacturers would either participate in the negotiating process” — because they have no effective alternative — “or pull a particular drug out of the U.S. market entirely.”
CBO also noted, in a classic bit of understatement, that Pelosi’s bill “could result in litigation,” for threatening losses on any company that dares defy the government’s offer of “negotiation.” But the Left seems uninterested in abiding by limits on government power — or the consistency of its own arguments. As I <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/dems-new-plan-would-ban-private-medicine-11557688457" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wsj.com/articles/dems-new-plan-would-ban-private-medicine-11557688457&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFNRhLOlmEwRWTbqkNbJt_yGEVBpw">noted this spring</a>, other proposed legislation in Congress would abolish the private health care market. Less than one decade after forcing all Americans to buy a product for the first time ever, in the form of Obamacare’s insurance mandate, liberals now want to prohibit all Americans from purchasing care directly from their doctors.
These recent proposals continue a virulent strain of authoritarianism that has permeated progressivism’s entire history. Franklin Roosevelt threatened to invoke emergency powers during his first inaugural address, and Rahm Emanuel infamously <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3D_mzcbXi1Tkk&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEqUQZt1ngA3w0MxGoRCLRx9FlQDQ">said</a> during the Great Recession that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Make no mistake: The health care system needs patient-centered reform. But the true crisis comes from the progressives who would utilize blunt government force to seize control of one-fifth of the nation’s economy.
&nbsp;
Mr. Jacobs is Founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, and author of the book The Case Against Single Payer. He is on Twitter: <a href="http://www.twitter.com/chrisjacobsHC" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.twitter.com/chrisjacobsHC&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNH6oeMTNLARnFthxB33FurVWA3XYw">@chrisjacobsHC</a>.

Surgeons operating patient for breast implant

JACOBS: The Left’s Health Care Vision Is A Prescription For Brute Government Force

Health

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi dismissed her party&#8217;s calls to pass Medicare for All on Saturday and instead defended the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as the most politically viable health insurance option for Americans.
&#8220;No, I do not,&#8221; Pelosi replied during an interview with NPR when she was asked if she agreed with many of the Democratic presidential candidates&#8217; demands to implement a single-payer health care system.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
&#8220;This is complicated to put together health care for as many Americans as possible. Our goal for all of us, including those presidential candidates is to have health care for all Americans — affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;We believe that the path of the Affordable Care Act is the way to go, so I do believe that if you want to have whatever they are calling their plan — Medicare for all, whatever it is — the path to it is the Affordable Care Act.&#8221;
Former Vice President Joe Biden stands alone as the sole major presidential candidate to fully endorse the ACA, more commonly referred to as Obamacare. Biden has campaigned on reinstating the individual mandate as a way to guarantee that all Americans receive adequate health care coverage.
Through the mandate, the government would fine any individual who did not obtain sufficient health insurance. As a way to bypass the unconstitutional requirement to force Americans to purchase insurance, the individual mandate was categorized as an income-based tax levy. It was rolled back in 2017 after Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Many of the Democratic presidential candidates, however, have made universal health care plans cornerstones of their campaign platforms, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). The plan would notably force roughly 150 million Americans who are currently enrolled in private insurance plans to switch to a government-run program.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) faced widespread blow-back in January after she stated that she feels &#8220;very strongly&#8221; about fully embracing the single-payer health insurance system and thereby overhauling the entire American health care market. She later walked back her statements and argued that it is more nuanced than she previously illustrated.
However, Harris further stated that she wants a pathway to single-payer, but believes private health insurance should continue to cover people in the interim, which her campaign referred to as &#8220;Medicare for more.&#8221; Pelosi seemingly echoed a similar position on Saturday.
&#8220;I am with you as an advocate,&#8221; Pelosi said. &#8220;But as a member of Congress needing to get results for the American people, let&#8217;s take a path that takes us quickest and best and strongest to affordable care for all Americans.&#8221;
&#8220;I salute them if that is what they believe, I bless them for that, but that was, I think, not the practical path to get something done,&#8221; Pelosi added. &#8220;And I can, I say to them all of these issues, single-payer and all that, I have those signs in my basement from 30 years ago.&#8221;

nancy_pelosi

LISTEN: Nancy Pelosi Rejects Her Party’s Calls For Single-Payer Health Insurance

Nancy Pelosi

According to a letter obtained by The Daily Wire, a group of prominent conservative leaders have staked out their opposition to Judge Halil Suleyman (&#8220;Sul&#8221;) Ozerden, the president&#8217;s <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/16/trump-judicial-nominee-1417561">controversial</a> pick to fill a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-judicial-nominees-3/">vacant Mississippi-based seat</a> on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Ozerden, who is presently a U.S. district court judge in Mississippi, has been assailed by many due to concerns stemming from alleged exegetical sloppiness and alleged hostility to religious liberty.
The letter&#8217;s signees include First Liberty Institute President and CEO Kelly Shackelford, Conservative Action Project Chairman Alfred Regnery, Morton Blackwell, Dr. James Dobson, Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund Chairman Jenny Beth Martin, ForAmerica President David Bozell, March for Life Action President Tom McClusky, and Wallbuilders Founder David Barton. The letter reads, in relevant part:
<blockquote>Conservatives have grave concerns about the nomination of Judge Halil Ozerden to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Specifically, the undersigned raise issue with his commitment to religious liberty, and more broadly, with his commitment to advancing the original meaning of the Constitution. &#8230;
Ozerden’s indifference to religious liberty in [the case of Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 1:12-cv-00158-HSO-RHW, slip op. at 7–8, 15 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 20, 2012)] is indicative of a judicial style that is short on substance and which demonstrates a troubling indifference to the textualism we would hope to see in a circuit court judge.
A demonstrated commitment to religious liberty and a deference to the Constitution as it was originally written are the hallmarks of a prudent jurist. Principled conservatives must stand against judges being elevated because of who they know, rather than a proven history of a solid conservative judicial philosophy.
As Sen. Ted Cruz, who has argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, stated, &#8220;for a lifetime appointment on the court of appeals, I believe we should be looking for someone with a strong, demonstrated record as a constitutionalist. I have significant concerns that Judge Ozerden&#8217;s judicial record does not indicate that he meets that standard. For that reason, I do not believe he should be on the court of appeals, and I will oppose his nomination.&#8221; Senator Cruz is correct. Hopefully, other principled senators who care about our courts will join him.</blockquote>
As the letter indicates, stalwart conservative Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has already <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/ted-cruz-halil-sul-ozerden-nomination-1492305">come out in public opposition</a> to Ozerden&#8217;s nomination. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has indicated he will support the Ozerden nomination, while many conservative eyes remain fixed on Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) — a fellow former U.S. Supreme Court clerk and member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee who has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47899/hammer-senator-josh-hawley-most-important-freshman-josh-hammer">already fought multiple battles</a> thus far in 2019 against Trump administration judicial nominees. It is unclear whether Hawley will fight at least one more.
As a recent judicial clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit myself, I wrote a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48881/hammer-sul-ozerden-very-weak-fifth-circuit-pick-josh-hammer">Daily Wire op-ed</a> in June explaining my own personal opposition to the Ozerden nomination:
<blockquote>What Judge Ozerden did in Catholic Diocese of Biloxi represents nothing less than a deliberate indifference — indeed, perhaps an outright hostility — to the interests of religious liberty. And religious liberty, of course, is easily one of the most indispensable issues by which senators ought to vet and assess judicial nominees. &#8230;
As a very recent Fifth Circuit law clerk, I can attest that the Court&#8217;s en banc votes — in which important cases are brought before all active judges — are oftentimes nail-biting affairs. The Fifth Circuit is being made great again, but it is not quite fully there yet. &#8230; And this Mississippi seat promises to be the proverbial Anthony Kennedy seat on the Court — the swing vote in en banc voting who will decide crucially important matters of intense interest to conservatives.
We should have zero question marks from the nominee for this Mississippi seat.</blockquote>
Some of Ozerden&#8217;s tough-on-crime defenders have attempted to defend his nomination by pointing to his purported tough sentencing practices as a district court judge but, as I tweeted yesterday, even that proposition is unclear at best.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Pablo Vega-Ontanon, an illegal alien from Mexico, was caught with enough fentanyl to kill 500,000 people. Maximum sentence was life imprisonment and a $10 million fine.
Sul Ozerden sentenced him to six years plus supervised release. <a href="https://t.co/Ko1nPnHNaM">https://t.co/Ko1nPnHNaM</a>
— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1174778372225785856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Time is running short for fellow conservative senators to join Cruz — Ozerden&#8217;s U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation vote will likely be held next week.

US. Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals

Key Conservatives Double Down On Opposition To Trump Judicial Nominee

Birth Control

First Amendment

Josh Hawley

Religion

Ted Cruz

Last night, Robert Francis &#8220;Beto&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke doubled down, in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51718/beto-says-hell-yes-were-going-take-americans-guns-james-barrett">rather colorful fashion</a>, on his vow to confiscate from law-abiding Americans their <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51381/hammer-i-will-never-ever-let-government-buy-back-josh-hammer">cherished</a> rifles whose <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44327/hammer-here-are-three-core-reasons-oppose-ban-josh-hammer">cosmetically amorphous and technically undefinable</a> features lead leftists to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50263/hammer-conservatives-must-not-go-soft-assault-josh-hammer">peculiarly label</a> them so-called &#8220;assault weapons.&#8221; &#8220;Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke said to enthusiastic audience applause, as The Daily Wire&#8217;s James Barrett <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51718/beto-says-hell-yes-were-going-take-americans-guns-james-barrett">reported</a>.
Last night, furthermore, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43796/hammer-bernie-sanders-entire-worldview-grotesquely-josh-hammer">communist</a> loonbag <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48572/where-does-bernie-sanders-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">Bernie Sanders</a> and demagogic harridan <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48596/where-does-elizabeth-warren-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">Elizabeth Warren</a> each doubled down in their joint defense of a one-size-fits-all socialized medicine national health care takeover that would, in the estimate of fellow 2020 presidential contender <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49364/where-does-amy-klobuchar-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">Amy Klobuchar</a>, strip over 140 million Americans of their privately held health insurance plans. Joe Biden, the purported &#8220;moderate&#8221; in this hellish menagerie, parroted last night the &#8220;no one will lose his doctor under Obamacare&#8221; ruse — a ruse, that is, which was literally exposed by left-leaning PolitiFact as its 2013 &#8220;Lie of the Year&#8221; with respect to the very underlying health care plan Biden now haplessly touts.
All of this, of course, came precisely two primary debates after open-borders zealot Julian Castro decided to hail the pagan glory that is abortion for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49056/hammer-democratic-party-fundamentally-unfit-lead-josh-hammer">&#8220;trans females&#8221;</a> — which would be biological men who subjectively feel as if they are women. The careful reader — or really anyone who has ever opened a biology textbook — will note that a member of the human species with both X and Y chromosomes, otherwise known as a man, cannot possibly procure an abortion even if he desires to do so. Yet we are still reliably informed that the Democrats, who have never seen a statist economic program they didn&#8217;t tendentiously glom onto under the hectoring veneer of &#8220;climate change,&#8221; are the Party of Science™.
I am not sure if the Democrats are the Party of Science. But I do know that the modern Democratic Party, which promotes youngsters who would&#8217;ve been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49515/hammer-aocs-squad-will-destroy-democrats-2020-josh-hammer">right at home in the Soviet Politburo</a> and remains emphatically <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51709/hammer-democratic-party-fatally-attracted-hardcore-josh-hammer">in the throes of its leftist base</a>, has not merely become <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/49056/hammer-democratic-party-fundamentally-unfit-lead-josh-hammer">fundamentally unfit</a> to govern the United States of America. It has also become an utter parody of its very self.
For decades, Republicans have mocked Democratic anti-gun proposals by calling them &#8220;gun grabbers.&#8221; Now, Beto O&#8217;Rourke is literally promoting — and <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/13/beto-orourke-selling-t-shirts-hell-yes-were-going-/">fundraising</a> off of! — his proposal to forcibly confiscate the firearms of tens of millions of peaceful, law-abiding gun owners. In <a href="http://theresurgent.com/2019/09/13/is-beto-orourke-trying-to-sabotage-the-democrats-again/">sabotaging</a> his own party, O&#8217;Rourke has outed the Democratic id for the masses to see — and boy, is it <a href="https://twitter.com/MattMackowiak/status/1172315168446935040">ugly</a>.
For years if not decades, Republicans have ridiculed Democratic health care proposals by asserting their pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams on socializing medicine would inevitably lead to the stripping away of private health insurance for tens of millions of Americans. Now, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">two of the top three contenders</a> for the Democrats&#8217; 2020 presidential nomination, are advocating for precisely that. A major political party entertained a genuine policy debate last night on the efficacy and morality of eradicating the health insurance plans of over 140 million Americans. Think about that for a second.
For years, Republicans have sneered at Democrats that their anti-biology crusade in the realm of normalizing &#8220;transgenderism&#8221; was, ultimately, untenable. Biology, many conservatives have told their Party of Science™ counterparts, is immutable. Now, Julian Castro advocates <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51556/hammer-bernies-pagan-support-child-sacrifice-josh-hammer">pagan-esque unborn child sacrifice for Moloch</a> for a &#8220;class&#8221; of human beings who are <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48927/walsh-democrats-put-their-scientific-illiteracy-matt-walsh">biologically incapable of bearing children</a>. Contemporary fealty to political correctness apparently demands such devout obeisance to the LGBTQ+ alphabet soup lobby such that science itself must be subordinated and shunned.
We are truly through the looking-glass.
Forget The Onion. Forget The Babylon Bee. Parody is here, and its name is the Democratic Party.

ABC Houston Democratic presidential debate.jpg

HAMMER: The Democratic Party Has Become A Parody Of Itself

Amy Klobuchar

Bernie Sanders

Beto O'Rourke

Climate Change

Democratic Socialism

Elizabeth Warren

Global Warming

Gun Buybacks

Last week, the wife of Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-SC) posted an Instagram video to &#8220;rant&#8221; about her healthcare costs, especially whining about her marriage counseling bill not covered under her Obamacare &#8220;gold&#8221; plan. The wife and mother announced that she was going to &#8220;[reach] out to my congressman,&#8221; who happens to be her husband.
&#8220;I&#8217;m gonna have a little bit of a rant here on social media because I think this is important,&#8221; Amanda Cunningham started the video, as reported by <a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/dem-congressmans-wife-mind-blowing-our-insurance-doesnt-cover-marriage-counseling/">The Washington Free Beacon</a>. &#8220;I&#8217;ve been going over my not-a-bill bill here from Blue Cross Blue Shield, and realizing that, once again, all of my mental health therapy sessions are denied, in addition to all of our marriage counseling sessions.&#8221;
&#8220;It&#8217;s just mind-blowing to me that these basic well-known needs, that mental health is healthcare, are still being denied, that we&#8217;re still fighting for these absolutely basic things, it&#8217;s unbelievable to me,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;So I&#8217;m reaching out to my congressman — yes, also my husband — but saying, like, hey, what can we do about this? Let&#8217;s go to the House floor, let&#8217;s write a bill, Iet&#8217;s — I don&#8217;t know what you do, but let&#8217;s do it because this is ridiculous.&#8221;
&#8220;This affects us, our family, it affects everyone else who&#8217;s seeking mental health and needs support doing so. I&#8217;m just flabbergasted,&#8221; Cunningham ended the video post.
Rep. Cunningham is given access to the Obamacare &#8220;gold&#8221; plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield as a member of Congress and is &#8220;responsible for paying about a quarter of the premiums,&#8221; the Beacon noted.
For the affluent family to have their marriage counseling sessions covered in their plan, far less affluent Americans would see their premiums rise.
&#8220;She didn&#8217;t say it outright, but in her &#8216;rant,&#8217; Cunningham wanted to raise premiums on other Americans — most of whom earn far less than her family — so she would receive &#8216;free&#8217; therapy,&#8221; explained author and Juniper Research Group CEO Christopher Jacobs at <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/10/democrat-reps-wife-demands-free-marriage-counseling-taxpayer-subsidized-health-plan/">The Federalist</a>. &#8220;Viewed from this perspective, her objections seem somewhat self-serving from a family in the upper tier of the income spectrum.&#8221;
Jacobs noted that Obamacare, which was mandated by way of penalty on the American people by Democrats, already spiked healthcare costs, hurting Americans far less wealthy that the Cunningham family:
<blockquote>In CBO&#8217;s view, the law required people to buy richer insurance policies, and those richer policies encouraged people to consume more health care, both of which led to a rise in premiums. Unfortunately, that rise in premiums over the past several years has led millions of individuals who do not qualify for insurance subsidies (unlike Amanda Cunningham) to drop their coverage.</blockquote>
WATCH:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">New video: Dem congressman Joe Cunningham&#8217;s wife is outraged her taxpayer-subsidized Obamacare plan doesn&#8217;t pay for her therapy, their marriage counseling<a href="https://t.co/HQLyf1g4Iy">https://t.co/HQLyf1g4Iy</a> <a href="https://t.co/3NXD4qD98c">pic.twitter.com/3NXD4qD98c</a>
— Brent Scher (@BrentScher) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrentScher/status/1171134249581371392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The video of Mrs. Cunningham&#8217;s self-described &#8220;rant&#8221; landed as out-of-touch for many on social media.
&#8220;Why do I need to pay for her marriage counseling LOL,&#8221; asked Congressional candidate Joe Saladino.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">Why do I need to pay for her marriage counseling LOL
— Saladino for Congress (@JoeySalads) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeySalads/status/1171177167679557632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;Sometimes I feel a bit sorry for male liberals because their side has created a Frankenstein in the name of feminism and their women come across as narcissistic. But then I realize that if you create Frankenstein then you have to live with it,&#8221; responded pro-life crusader Obianuju Ekeocha.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">Sometimes I feel a bit sorry for male liberals because their side has created a Frankenstein in the name of feminism and their women come across as narcissistic. But then I realize that if you create Frankenstein then you have to live with it.
— Obianuju Ekeocha (@obianuju) <a href="https://twitter.com/obianuju/status/1171197817773338625?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;&#8216;I don&#8217;t know what you do… ,'&#8221; popular conservative writer and Twitter account &#8220;AG Conservative&#8221; pointedly mocked, adding laughing emojis.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">&#8220;I don&#8217;t know what you do &#8230;&#8221;
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) <a href="https://twitter.com/AG_Conservative/status/1171231191594393601?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>

Congressman Cunningham

WATCH: Dem’s Wife Posts Video Complaining That Taxpayers Aren’t Footing Bill For Her Marriage Counseling

South Carolina

Former Republican New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Monday for promoting policies that are so far to the left that they resemble those of socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro.
“It sounds like Bernie Sanders is having his policies and statements written by the Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro,” Sununu told Fox News host Sandra Smith when asked about the presidential candidate’s new proposal to cancel $81 billion of medical debt. “I mean, this is socialism to the extreme.”
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
“I think it indicates that Bernie has decided that it is down to a two-person race with Elizabeth Warren and what he has to do in order to win is to out-pander her,” he continued. “And so you’re going to see a continuing series of all of these.”
Accordingly, the Vermont senator previewed an upcoming plan that would wipe away individuals’ past-due medical bills without impacting their credit scores. The $81 billion price tag is exclusive of his Medicare-for-All plan — a keystone of his presidential campaign — which estimates indicate could cost as much as $40 trillion.
In June, Sanders unveiled a separate proposal to eliminate the student loan debt of every American — approximately 45 million people. That sweeping plan would cost upwards of $1.5 trillion.
“But the other thing that comes out of this statement — and Republicans ought to take advantage of it — is that Bernie Sanders is doing an extremely good job of telling us what a disaster Obamacare is and that Obamacare really has to be replaced,” Sununu said.
The New Hampshire governor also noted that as Sanders and fellow progressive challenger Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) battle for the far-left lane of the current Democratic presidential primary, both candidates will likely try to outdo each other on the “everything for everybody” front.
“[Health insurance] is becoming a big test and they’re all pounding Obamacare and in ways that Republicans weren’t as effective as these Democrats seem to be,” Sununu said. “The only one defending Obamacare — and it’s beginning to slip even there — is [former Vice President] Joe Biden.”
Biden, who is largely running on former President Barack Obama’s legacy, is one of the only leading Democratic contenders not to advocate for a Medicare-for-All system that would overhaul the entire health insurance market. Rather, he has vowed to reinstate Obamacare&#8217;s individual mandate to attempt to ensure all Americans obtain sufficient health insurance.
The mandate was initially part of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as Obamacare. As a way to bypass the unconstitutional requirement to force Americans to purchase insurance, the individual mandate was upheld in 2012 by the U.S. Supreme Court as an income-based tax levy.
The individual mandate was repealed after President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017.
“For everyone but Biden this has become an effort to be attractive to the millennials who have absolutely no idea what things cost and who have absolutely no idea that eventually — as Margaret Thatcher said — in socialism, you begin to run out of other people’s money,” Sununu added.

WATCH: New Hampshire Governor: Bernie Sanders Policies Sound Like They’re Written By Nicolas Maduro

New Hampshire

Nicolas Maduro

On Monday&#8217;s episode of &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show,&#8221; Knowles discusses how Trump unconventionally manages to accomplish what is impossible for traditional politicians. Video and partial transcript below:
President Trump, just while everyone was looking over here, while everyone is looking at all the tweets and all the &#8220;convfefe,&#8221; President Trump accomplished a significant portion, of a significant promise, of something that conservatives have been trying to do for [a] decade. We&#8217;re seeing this pattern, in 2017, President Trump failed to repeal Obamacare. You remember that … Republicans have been campaigning against Obamacare since 2009.
And they just had failed to do it, in 2010, they didn&#8217;t do it, in 2012, they didn’t do it, in 2014 they didn&#8217;t do it. 2016, Trump gets elected. He campaigns on it; 2017, they fail to defund Obamacare. That&#8217;s mostly because John McCain (R-AZ) changed his mind at the last minute, and [it] really messed us up over an important campaign promise for the American people.
But then what happened? Trump was upset about that; he still can&#8217;t even hear the name John McCain without shivers going up his spine. But in 2018 ⁠— the following year ⁠— President Trump passed a tax bill. [The] tax bill was good, it lowered rates, [it] saved people money at the time. And what people weren&#8217;t reporting at the time is that the tax bill repealed the individual mandate, which was the heart and soul of Obamacare… The central problem [with Obamacare] is that it forced you to purchase a product from a private company that you maybe don&#8217;t want to purchase, a lot of Americans didn&#8217;t want to purchase.
[The mandate was] totally crooked, totally unconstitutional, and that Trump Tax Bill got rid of the Obamacare mandate without anybody noticing because we were all paying attention to the taxes. We were all paying attention to the crazy tweets. We were all paying attention to the cofevve. Meanwhile, President Trump fulfilled a good percentage of an important promise, which no one else had been able to fulfill. He did it while we all weren&#8217;t paying attention.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/t-Q6S6Mg86A?start=484" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
It&#8217;s the same thing here. Trump gets elected in 2016. He becomes president in 2017. So, 2017, 2018, and up through 2019, he had failed to defund Planned Parenthood. Now is that his fault? I guess he could have leaned more on the House and the Senate when we still had the House… But the fault is also in the legislators. What happened? Why didn&#8217;t Mitch McConnell (R-KY) bring this up? Why didn&#8217;t Paul Ryan (R-WI) at the time bring this up? Because Republican lawmakers are total cowards when it comes to Planned Parenthood. They don&#8217;t really want to defund it. There&#8217;s a ton of squishes among Republicans. They don&#8217;t want to make Lisa Murkowski (R-Al) or Susan Collins (R-ME) vote on that, and frankly they like to keep the pro-life issue available. They like to keep Planned Parenthood being funded because it&#8217;s a good fundraiser from us conservatives, us pro-lifers. The minute that you get rid of abortion, conservatives and Republicans lose a great fundraising tool, which is keeping all of us pro-lifers eager to defund these abortion mills.
So, I think cynically they moved not to do it. And so what is President Trump do? He doesn&#8217;t get it through the normal way, the way that we were all expecting him to do it. And so now ⁠— [in] 2019, well into his first term ⁠— he changes this rule, Title X. Maybe he didn&#8217;t even know that they were changing this rule. Maybe he just appointed good people who are able to fulfill his campaign promises. I mean that&#8217;s what presidents do, they delegate.
One way or another this rule gets changed, and what you&#8217;re looking at today is the possible defunding of Planned Parenthood by Planned Parenthood&#8217;s own hand. This actually gives credence to the idea that President Trump is a dealmaker. That he does the art of the deal. That he does negotiate. That he does get things done, he [just] doesn&#8217;t do it in the way that we all expect because we are used to that typical Republican. They know how to talk, they know the phrases, we know what the phrases mean. When they say they&#8217;re going to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, they don&#8217;t really mean that. But it does mean that they&#8217;ll do this, and it means they will do that. And you&#8217;ve got to play like 7-D chess just to figure out what these people are even saying because they won&#8217;t speak in plain English.
Trump comes in and he actually does manage to keep a lot of his promises. I don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s most, but more promises than his predecessors at least. And he does it in ways that we don&#8217;t expect.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Download full episode of &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; on iTunes.</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/show/michael-knowles-show">Watch &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; on-demand!</a>

U.S. President Donald Trump&#8217;s MAGA rally at SNHU

KNOWLES: Trump Just Fulfilled Another Campaign Promise In An Unconventional Way

Abortion

Michael Knowles

Planned Parenthood

Trump Administration

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) revealed on Wednesday that he will be using President Donald Trump’s visit to Dayton, Ohio as an opportunity to give the president a list of demands face-to-face, including expanding government-run health care.
&#8220;I spent much of yesterday wrestling with the right thing to do when President Trump visits Dayton today,&#8221; Brown said in a statement. &#8220;I decided I have a responsibility to Ohioans to use this opportunity to look the President in the eye and urge him to do the right thing.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I wrestled with the right thing to do when Trump visits Dayton today. I decided I have a responsibility to look him in the eye and urge him to do the right thing. <a href="https://t.co/OpMtDNheiO">pic.twitter.com/OpMtDNheiO</a>
— Sherrod Brown (@SenSherrodBrown) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSherrodBrown/status/1159101195652349958?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Trump confirmed a day prior that he will be traveling to Dayton to pay his respects to first responders, law enforcement officers, and victims of a mass shooting that occurred over the weekend. A gunman took the lives of nine people and injured more than 30 others after he opened fire on a crowd outside of a bar early Sunday morning.
Following what Trump referred to as an &#8220;unspeakable act of evil,&#8221; the president <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50246/watch-trump-urges-nation-condemn-white-supremacy-molly-prince">addressed the nation</a>, calling for bipartisan cooperation on determining a potential solution to a recent slew of mass shootings.
The president also urged reform of America’s mental health laws, which he contended would not only better identify the &#8220;mentally disturbed individuals&#8221; who may commit future acts of violence, but would also treat them prior to any violent incidents occur.
&#8220;Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;Not the gun.&#8221;
&#8220;I will tell the President [when he comes to Dayton that] if he is serious about supporting mental health, he must support Medicaid expansion and [the] Affordable Care Act that provide care for so many,&#8221; Brown responded in his statement.
The president, however, has long opposed both Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as &#8220;Obamacare,&#8221; in favor of more private and competitive options. Brown’s office refused to comment when asked if the senator believes expanding governmental health programs is the only way to support mental health reform.
Brown, a vocal critic of the president, also stated that he will demand that Trump tell Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to bring the Senate back into session and subsequently vote on &#8220;gun safety&#8221; legislation. Brown is seemingly referring to H.R. 8, a bill requiring background checks for firearm sales between private parties, that recently passed in the House.
The Ohio senator reversed his decision to meet with the president in Dayton after he had initially declined the opportunity.
&#8220;We are also angry — angry that shooting after shooting politicians in Washington and Columbus refuse to pass sensible gun-safety laws to protect our communities,&#8221; Brown <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSherrodBrown/status/1157992270706216960?s=20">tweeted</a> on Sunday. &#8220;We are still learning about the attack in Dayton and we don’t know exactly what, if anything could have prevented this specific tragedy. But we know thoughts and prayers are not enough, we have a responsibility to act.&#8221;
&#8220;I don’t have any interest because of what he’s done on this, total unwillingness to address the issue of guns, his racist rhetoric,&#8221; Brown said during a Sirius XM radio interivew on Tuesday. &#8220;I don’t know what he’s going to say and do there. I mean, I welcome him to the state in some sense, but not about this.&#8221;
Brown was mulling over his own presidential run in 2020 due to his successful track record in the Rust Belt, a region that largely helped elect Trump in 2016. While Trump edged out Hillary Clinton by eight points in Ohio, Brown beat out his Republican challenger in the 2018 midterm election by just over six points. Moreover, he was the only Democrat to win statewide election in 2018, aside from judicial candidates.

Senate Democrats Press Conference

Democratic Ohio Senator Using Trump’s Visit To Dayton To Push Obamacare

Ohio

Shooting

On Monday, former Vice President Joe Biden brought back fond memories of yesteryear by repeating the mantra of his former boss, former President Barack Obama, stating, &#8220;If you like your health care plan … you can keep it.&#8221;
Biden was speaking at an AARP-sponsored conference when he reportedly asserted, “I give people the option. If you like your health care plan, your employer-based plan, you can keep it. If in fact you have private insurance, you can keep it.” As <a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/biden-repeats-obama-pledge-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-you-can-keep-it/">The Washington Free Beacon</a> reports, “The 2020 Democratic frontrunner released a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/joe-biden-health-care-plan-obamacare-public-option/index.html">health care plan</a> Monday that would seek to build upon the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, which included subsidies to lower prices on the exchanges and also allowing for a &#8216;public option&#8217; his campaign called similar to Medicare.”
Biden added, “You get a choice. You get full coverage and you can stay with your plan if you like it. You can stay with your employer-based plan, or you can move on. I think it&#8217;s the quickest, most reasonable, rational and best way to get to universal coverage.&#8221;
Fox News noted of Obama’s infamous promise, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan”:
<blockquote>That familiar pledge, made repeatedly over several years by former President Barack Obama, was named the <a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/">2013 &#8220;Lie of the Year&#8221;</a> by fact-checking website Politifact, as millions of individuals lost their private insurance &#8212; and had to switch to costlier options &#8212; due to changes mandated by the Affordable Care Act.</blockquote>
Politifact wrote:
<blockquote>The Affordable Care Act tried to allow existing health plans to continue under a complicated process called &#8220;grandfathering,&#8221; which basically said insurance companies could keep selling plans if they followed certain rules.
The problem for insurers was that the Obamacare rules were strict. If the plans deviated even a little, they would lose their grandfathered status. In practice, that meant insurers canceled plans that didn’t meet new standards.
Obama’s team seemed to understand that likelihood. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the grandfathering rules in June 2010 and acknowledged that some plans would go away. Yet Obama repeated &#8220;if you like your health care plan, you can keep it&#8221; when seeking re-election last year.</blockquote>
In an <a href="https://www.hughhewitt.com/chicago-tribune-columnist-obamas-health-care-promise-lied/">interview</a> with radio host Hugh Hewitt in October 2013, even the noted Obama defender Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune reluctantly admitted that Obama lied about his promise. The exchange went like this:
<blockquote>Hewitt: Now Clarence, you have written a few columns defending Obamacare, but you can’t defend that as other than an utter untruth, can you?
Page: Oh, Obamacare is like the proverbial camel being a horse designed by committee, right? It’s gone through so many changes and all, that the original dream has been largely corrupted. And there’s no guarantee, I knew even, and Obama knew even at the time he said it, there was no guarantee everybody was going to keep their insurance, because people couldn’t keep their insurance under the old system.
Hewitt: So he knew he was lying when he lied?
Page: I’m sorry?
Hewitt: He knew he was lying?
Page: Probably. Probably. But that’s one of those political lies, you know.
Hewitt: Well, don’t you think a lot of people…
Page: It’s one of those, you know, in the abstract, it’s correct, but the fact is…
Hewitt: Is it forgivable? Are you allowed to lie to get a bigger good? Is that it?
Page: Well, the question is, most people will be able to keep their own insurance policies. And that was the point he was trying to make. He was just being too grandiose and saying, and guaranteeing that everybody was going to keep their insurance.
Hewitt: Well, I agree with you. He knew what he was doing when he did that.
Page: Sure.
Hewitt: And is that acceptable for people to just out and out mislead the low information voters out there?
Page : He said it repeatedly in a political campaign that he won, so that’s what a political lie is all about, right?
Hewitt: But when he said this, it was after he was already in the White House.
Page: Well, he said it on the campaign trail repeatedly.
Hewitt: I know, but after he won, he then said it. Was that okay?
Page: Right, right. Well, what’s the difference?
Hewitt: Well, the difference is you’re the president of the United States.
Page: He made a promise to the public either way.
Hewitt: So it doesn’t bother you that he lied to us?
Page: Well, a lot of things bother me. You act like all lies are equal, right?</blockquote>
Obama on video here:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qpa-5JdCnmo" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>

SURPRISE: Biden Echoes Obama’s Most Famous Lie

The Democratic Party has become, in the year 2019, a deeply destructive political force. The Party, as presently comprised, is a ragtag potpourri of anti-nation-state/pro-open-borders activists, devoted prenatal infanticide cultists, neo-Marxist economic &#8220;class warfare&#8221; grievance-mongers, and identity politics-centric racial identitarian hucksters. This is a Party for whom a leading presidential candidate — in both 2016 and 2020 — is a Fidel Castro-praising <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43796/hammer-bernie-sanders-entire-worldview-grotesquely-josh-hammer">actual communist</a> who literally <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48956/watch-hammer-tipping-point-liz-wheeler-bernie-daily-wire">honeymooned in the former Soviet Union</a> and flew a hammer-and-sickle Soviet flag in his Vermont mayoral office at a time when the U.S. was engaged in an existential &#8220;mutually assured destruction&#8221; standoff with the Kremlin.
In short, the modern Democratic Party is not a healthy political vehicle. It is afflicted with the most pernicious of all political maladies — a seething sense of self-hatred. It is exceedingly difficult to ponder the core tenets of Founding-era American political theory — separation of powers, federalism, a carefully delineated nation-state, a durable and constitutionally secured rule of law, religious liberty, and flourishing intermediary institutions of the civil society — and conclude that the modern Democratic Party has a relationship with the United States of America itself that can be characterized as anything other than haughty self-abnegation.
Indeed, the two Democratic presidential candidate debates last week were revealing.
The 2020 Democrats <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48927/walsh-democrats-put-their-scientific-illiteracy-matt-walsh">categorically refuse</a> to identify a single limitation on abortion that they could support. They speak about the need to even protect abortion for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48927/walsh-democrats-put-their-scientific-illiteracy-matt-walsh">&#8220;trans females&#8221;</a> — which would be biological men who subjectively feel as if they are women. The 2020 Democrats do not bother to explain how exactly it is that a &#8220;trans female&#8221; — a member of the human species with both X and Y chromosomes — could procure an abortion, which can probably be easily explained by the fact that there is no such thing as a pregnancy for a &#8220;trans female.&#8221;
The 2020 Democrats, furthermore, held an actual, legitimate debate on whether it is appropriate to eradicate private health insurance in America. We have apparently moved on so far from the debate over the inclusion of a &#8220;public option&#8221; in Obamacare that the relevant leftist policy debate is now not about the inclusion of a &#8220;public option,&#8221; but is instead about the exclusion of a &#8220;private option&#8221; in the Democrats&#8217; post-Obamacare &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; socialized medicine dystopia. Because <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20110827054733/http://healthcouncilcanada.ca/en/index.php?page=shop.product_details&amp;flypage=shop.flypage&amp;product_id=120&amp;category_id=20&amp;manufacturer_id=0&amp;option=com_virtuemart&amp;Itemid=170">nothing</a> could <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/19111/baby-charlie-gard-has-died-amanda-prestigiacomo">possibly go wrong</a> with socialized medicine. And nothing could really go wrong with not only the imposition of single-payer socialized medicine, but the outright abolition of private health insurers.
The 2020 Democrats are completely clueless on the issue of foreign policy and America&#8217;s role in the world. In fact, if foreign policy had a role in the two debates last week beyond one or two rapid-fire, down-the-line questions, I believe I missed it. The word &#8220;Israel&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1144456752391315458">certainly was not mentioned</a> — as is befitting for a political party that is not just trending toward being seriously anti-Israel, but also toward being <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44424/hammer-stark-choice-facing-jewish-democrats-josh-hammer">seriously anti-Semitic</a>. The Democrats offer little more than platitudinous sound bites praising transnationalism and excoriating the post-1648 Westphalian nation-state system — exactly the opposite of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/45699/hammer-america-needs-re-think-its-global-alliances-josh-hammer">how foreign policy in the 21st century ought to be conducted</a>.
But perhaps on no issue were the 2020 Democrats more utterly radical than on the issue of immigration. The Democratic presidential candidates fell all over themselves to see who could position him/herself as the most authentic guardian of socialized medicine health insurance coverage for the country&#8217;s ever-burgeoning illegal alien population. Because amidst a hitherto unprecedented year-plus assault on America&#8217;s sovereignty by means of a systemic border crisis driven by murderous cartels and almost unanimously frivolous asylum claims, what the 2020 Democrats seem to care about the most is further incentivizing the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46609/report-smugglers-and-cartels-profited-23-billion-josh-hammer">profitable enterprise</a> of cartel-driven human trafficking — and the <a href="https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/09/where-is-metoo-for-women-at-the-border/">brutal rapes</a> that are inherent to those criminal trafficking rings — by offering the additional amnesty of &#8220;free,&#8221; taxpayer-subsidized health insurance for all illegals. It is a proposition that, <a href="https://amgreatness.com/2019/06/29/border-crisis-hypocrites-on-parade/">only five years ago</a>, would have been beyond parody. But now it is standard Democratic Party presidential campaign fare.
The Democratic Party is, at its core, a political outfit that despises all that makes America great. The Democrats despise borders, despise the distinction between citizen and alien, loathe constitutional self-governance, frown upon the church-attending &#8220;yokels&#8221; of Middle America, and seek to remodel America through the lens of an ever-supercilious, ever-secularist Europe. Political leftism, once ideologically dominated by a moral relativism that obfuscated lines between good and evil, is now nothing if not morally clear and bumptious about what it believes. It just happens that what modern Democrats believe is positively harrowing. This is an unserious political party that should never, ever be given the reins of power over the greatest nation in the history of the world.
Voters in 2020 will have an extraordinarily clear contrast presented to them at the ballot box. Hopefully they <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/45450/hammer-here-are-three-reasons-why-i-plan-vote-josh-hammer">make the right decision</a>.

HAMMER: The Democratic Party Is Fundamentally Unfit To Lead The United States Of America

Foreign Policy

Illegal Immigration

Immigration

On Wednesday, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) released a new <a href="http://files.kff.org/attachment/Topline-KFF-Health-Tracking-Poll-April-2019">survey</a> which was conducted between April 11-16 and asked 1,203 American &#8220;adults ages 18 and over&#8221; about issues pertaining to health care.
Here are some of the more interesting findings:
Majority for Medicare
KFF asked: &#8220;Do you favor or oppose having a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan?&#8221;
56% of respondents said that they (strongly or somewhat) favored a Medicare-for-all scheme, while 38% said that they (strongly or somewhat) opposed it.
However, when broken down further, the divide between those who favor or oppose such a system was much closer. While 36% &#8220;strongly&#8221; favored Medicare-for-all, 28% &#8220;strongly&#8221; opposed it.
Prescription Drug Costs
When given a list of options, then asked about what Congress&#8217; top priorities should be as it pertains to health care, 68% said that &#8220;lowering prescription drug costs for as many Americans as possible&#8221; was at the top of their lists. Next up was &#8220;making sure the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s protections for people with pre-existing health conditions continue,&#8221; with 64%.
The closest rival was &#8220;protecting people with health insurance from surprise high out-of-network medical bills,&#8221; which 50% of respondents indicated should be Congress&#8217; top priority.
It&#8217;s All in the Wording
When asked to indicate whether or not a given phrase had a positive or negative connotation, there were sharp differences depending on the way in which a government-run health care plan was termed.
While only 20% and 21% had &#8220;very positive&#8221; reactions to the phrases &#8220;socialized medicine&#8221; and &#8220;single payer health insurance system,&#8221; respectively, 45% and 41% had &#8220;very positive&#8221; reactions to the phrases &#8220;universal health coverage&#8221; and &#8220;Medicare-for-all,&#8221; respectively.
Very similar or identical measures stated differently led to starkly divergent feedback.
Obamacare Has Support
KFF asked: &#8220;Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn the 2010 health care law or not?&#8221; A majority of respondents (54%) indicated that they did not want to see it overturned, while a strong minority (39%) indicated the opposite. These answers were based on a &#8220;half sample&#8221; of 616.
Based on a half sample of 587, a much larger majority (68%) of respondents did not want the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s (ACA) protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions, while 27% want such protections overturned.
Obamacare vs. Medicare-for-all
There&#8217;s a sticking point among Democrats, and that&#8217;s the debate between bolstering Obamacare or moving toward a Medicare-for-all plan.
KFF asked: &#8220;Do you think Democrats in Congress should focus their efforts on improving and protecting the 2010 Affordable Care Act or should they focus their efforts on passing a national Medicare-for-all plan?&#8221;
Despite nearly every Democratic candidate for president calling for a nationalized healthcare plan of some kind, progressive voters are a little more gun shy, with 52% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning respondents indicating that they would rather keep and bolster the ACA, and just 39% indicating a desire for a Medicare-for-all plan.
That being said, those numbers have fluctuated dramatically over the last several months. In March, more Democrats wanted Medicare-for-all (49%) over protecting and improving the ACA (41%). In January, the tables were turned again, with the ACA possessing a 3% edge over Medicare-for-all.
Conclusion
This survey clearly demonstrates two things. First, the wording of political policy dramatically impacts the way it&#8217;s perceived. Second, many progressive Americans are having a crisis of identity regarding their position on health care.
Going into the 2020 election cycle, this information should be useful for both Democrats and Republicans.

New Health Care Survey Shows Some Support For ‘Medicare-For-All,’ But Wording Really Matters

Republican Party

According to a new <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/437401-poll-few-americans-believe-they-have-personally-benefitted-from?rnd=1554410733">poll</a>, a shockingly low percentage of Americans claim to have benefited from President Barack Obama&#8217;s signature piece of domestic legislation, Obamacare. In what ought to be viewed as a tremendous blow for Obamacare&#8217;s economic architects, only 14% of those polled said that Obamacare lowered their premiums, and only 13% of Americans said that Obamacare improved their co-pay fees.
The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/437401-poll-few-americans-believe-they-have-personally-benefitted-from?rnd=1554410733">reports</a>:
<blockquote>
Few Americans believe their health care situation has been improved by key components of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), according to a Hill-HarrisX poll released Thursday.
Across party lines, most registered voters contacted for the March 30-31 survey said major provisions of former President Obama&#8217;s signature health care law either had no real impact on them or had made things worse.
Forty-eight percent of respondents said the ACA had not impacted their monthly insurance premium costs, while 46 percent said their premiums were worse compared to before the law. Just 14 percent of respondents said they were better off.
When asked about the health care reform&#8217;s effect on co-pay fees, 41 percent said they were worse off, and 35 percent said they were not impacted. Only 13 percent said the ACA improved those costs.
Forty-one percent said their access to medical service providers is the same as it was before the ACA, while 16 percent said it is better. Thirty-four percent said things are worse in terms of access.
</blockquote>
Perhaps surprisingly, even Democrats polled were rather downtrodden about Obamacare&#8217;s effects. According to The Hill, &#8220;Democrats were more likely to say they had not benefited from the ACA than to say the law has helped their personal situations.&#8221; Perhaps many Democrats, especially on the Bernie Sanders/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hard Left, will interpret this as a cue to double down on &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38805/medicare-all-no-health-care-cure-all-ben-shapiro">Medicare-for-all</a>.&#8221; But no sane Democrat ought to interpret this as an endorsement of the (<a href="https://lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/10/reid-says-obamacare-just-step-toward-eventual-sing/">possibly even designed to fail</a>) prevailing status quo. And &#8220;Medicare-for-all,&#8221; of course, has no shortage of its own problems. As Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38805/medicare-all-no-health-care-cure-all-ben-shapiro">wrote</a> last November:
<blockquote>
So, would &#8220;Medicare-for-all&#8221; &#8212; Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s preferred solution &#8212; actually take care of the [healthcare cost] problem? Or would it exacerbate it, given that nationalized health care creates more rationing, not less? There&#8217;s a reason nationalized health care systems like Sweden&#8217;s and Britain&#8217;s have necessitated increased private spending outside of the rationed systems. As Scott Atlas of the Hoover Institution points out: &#8220;Sweden has increased its spending on private care for the elderly by 50 percent in the past decade, abolished its government&#8217;s monopoly over pharmacies, and made other reforms. Last year alone, the British government spent more than $1 billion on care from private and other non-NHS providers.&#8221;
And the entire global medical industry benefits from America&#8217;s private health care spending, which drives the creation of new drugs. So what happens when America no longer covers the cost for such pharmaceuticals? Our Food and Drug Administration may be slow, but it&#8217;s a lot faster than its European equivalents, which is why the vast majority of new cancer drugs are developed and made available faster in the United States.
</blockquote>
As TheBlaze <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/poll-on-obamacare">notes</a>, differences in those polled broke down, to some extent, along socioeconomic lines: &#8220;The less economically fortunate were much more unsure of the benefits of Obamacare, with 21 percent saying so, while the most fortunate were far less unsure &#8212; only 6 percent said they didn&#8217;t know if they benefitted or not. But among all four economic classes, a plurality said that their condition had not changed because of Obamacare.&#8221;

Poll: Only Fourteen Percent Of Americans Say Obamacare Has Lowered Their Health Insurance Premiums

Menu