Trump’s New Rule Aims to Expand Health Coverage and Lower Costs

By Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.  The Daily signal

The Trump administration just announced a major regulatory change, effective Jan. 1, 2020, that could significantly expand access to affordable health coverage and increase the choice of health plans, particularly among workers and their families in small businesses.

The proposed rule, jointly developed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Treasury Department, would allow employer-sponsored health reimbursement accounts to fund the purchase of individual health insurance on a tax-free basis.

Today, workers and their families can use tax-free health reimbursement accounts to offset medical expenses, such as out-of-pocket medical costs. Under the new rule, workers and their families could use employer contributions to the accounts to buy health insurance on their own.

This opportunity is particularly valuable for workers employed by small business owners who cannot afford to offer standard group health insurance, but who could afford to help offset the premium costs of their employees’ individual coverage.

Treasury Department officials estimate that the new rule could encourage as many as 800,000 employers to sponsor health reimbursement accounts, or HRAs, to fund individual coverage for more than 10 million workers.

This relief is crucial, particularly for workers and their families in small businesses. With the enactment of Obamacare in 2010, the already fragile condition of health coverage among small businesses worsened. For little companies with fewer than 25 workers, the percentage of businesses offering health insurance fell from 44 percent in 2010 to just 30 percent in 2018.

The Trump rule has the potential not only to expand coverage, but also to increase employees’ choices in health plans.

Among small and midsize companies (with fewer than 200 employees), 81 percent offered only one health plan as of last year. No choice, just a “take it or leave it” option.

The Trump rule would open up new coverage opportunities for employers and employees.

The rule also has some ancillary benefits for workers already covered by traditional, employer-sponsored health insurance. It would permit employers to contribute up to $1,800 yearly (indexed to inflation) to reimburse workers for certain additional medical expenses, such as dental benefits, as well as premiums for short-term health insurance plans. Such less expensive plans are especially valuable for persons who are between jobs.

The impact of the Trump rule could prove genuinely transformational, if Congress would take the obvious next step: Adopt the reform policies outlined in the Health Care Choices Proposal, developed by a broad coalition of conservative health policy analysts.

That proposal would restore the bulk of regulatory authority over health insurance markets to the states, provide financial assistance for the poor and the sick, and enable persons in government programs to use public funding to enroll in a private health plan of their choice, if they wished to do so.

By enabling states to liberalize their health insurance markets, Congress could enable employees, using health reimbursement accounts as a vehicle for tax-free premium payments, to choose among a variety of new and innovative plans.

Today, enrollees in the broken individual and small group markets are trapped in artificially expensive Obamacare plans. They are punished with explosive deductibles, shrinking choices, and excessively narrow networks of doctors and hospitals.

Working together, Congress and the president could yet achieve the greater policy goal long supported by America’s most notable economists, including the late Milton Friedman: individual tax relief for the purchase of health insurance in a robust and competitive consumer-driven market.

That change could be, in the very best sense of the word, revolutionary.

The myth of the eternal market bubble and why it is dead wrong

By Brandon Smith

Economic collapse is not an event — it is a process. I've been saying this since the 2008 crash, and I suppose I will keep saying until it burns into people's minds because I don't think that it is a widely understood concept. When alternative analysts talk about financial collapse, we are not talking about something that suddenly happens out of the blue, we are talking about an ongoing decline that occurs in stages. This decline is happening today in the U.S. and around the world, and it has been accelerating since the chaos of 2008. When we bring up the reality of collapse, we are referring to something that is happening now, not something waiting on the distant horizon. The reason why some analysts can see it and others cannot is most likely due to the delusions surrounding market bubbles. These fiscal fantasy worlds are artificially created by central bank intervention and represent and attempt to mislead the populace on the true health of the system — for a limited time. Analysts with foresight see beyond the false data of the bubble to the core economic reality; other people see only the bubble and nothing else. When it comes to stock markets, bond markets, forex markets and the general casino economy, much of the public has a terrible inability to look beyond the next month let alone the next year. If the markets look good now, the assumption is that they will always be good. If the central banks have intervened for the past 10 years, the assumption is they will intervene for the next 10 years. There is no accounting for why the bubble exists in the first place. That is to say, most people including most economists do not consider that these bubbles serve a particular purpose for the banking elites and that this purpose has an expiration date. All bubbles collapse, and the reasons why they collapse are observable and predictable. Still, the delusion persists that all this talk of "collapse" is simply "doom and gloom," an event that might happen many years or decades from now, but it's certainly not a threat taking place right in front of our faces. I attribute this fallacy to several popular misconceptions and propaganda arguments, and here they are in no particular order... Fallacy #1: Central banks will continue to prop up markets indefinitely The newest generation of market traders and economists were still in high school and college when the 2008 crash hit equities. For the entirety of their careers, they have seen nothing but an artificial economy supported by ongoing stimulus from central banks. They know nothing else and know little of history and thus they cannot fathom the possibility that central banks will one day pull the plug on their fiat life support. The problem is that 10 years of stimulus is nothing more than a mild pause in the process of fiscal collapse of a civilization. In fact, the economic decline of nations could be represented as a series of imploding bubbles; each one lasting perhaps a decade, leading to more power and control for central banks and less prosperity for everyone else. Anyone examining the history of recessions and depressions in the U.S. since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913 can easily see a steady pattern of artificially inflated asset values followed by pervasive downturns that siphon wealth from the middle class. This wealth never returns in full. Each new downturn cripples the financial independence of the citizenry a little more, while international banks absorb more and more hard assets. What mainstream economists don't seem to grasp is that central banks and international banks are always positioned to benefit from the crash of the bubbles they create. It is the reason why they inflated the bubbles from the very beginning. Central banks are not afraid to allow markets to plummet, they want markets to plummet. The banks simply want to be sure they are set up for optimum benefit when they do crash. Fallacy #2: Central banks will never stop stimulus measures I'm not sure why this fantasy persists despite all evidence to the contrary, but it does. Even today, I still receive letters from people arguing that the Fed will "never" end stimulus, never raise interest rates and never cut their balance sheet. Yet, this is exactly what is happening. I heard the same arguments years ago in 2013 when I predicted that the Fed would in fact taper QE. I heard them in 2015 when I predicted that the Fed would raise interest rates. And I have heard them for the past year after I predicted the Fed would continue cutting assets from their balance sheet. There are some people that might claim that there is no way for us to know if the Fed is actually cutting off stimulus to the economy because we have no way to audit their activities. While it is true that we do not have access to their legitimate records, only those they release to the public, we can see the affects that their policies produce. Meaning, it is obvious that the Fed is in fact cutting support to the markets given the behavior of those markets the past year. Emerging market stocks are crashing as the Fed announces continuing balance sheet cuts. Treasury yields are spiking at historic rates and interest costs are rising on everything from car loans to mortgage loans as the Fed increases interest rates. Foreign investment in U.S. Treasurys (or lack of investment) has become a major point of concern because QE support for T-bonds is gone. Massive corporate debt loads not seen since 2007/2008 are becoming more expensive as interest rates expand. This month Fed Chairman Jerome Powell ended all speculation on the matter when he indicated that the Fed would not only continue raising rates up to the neutral rate (where interest meets inflation), but that they could continue raising rates well beyond that. The blind faith based market is truly over. All evidence suggests that fiscal tightening is indeed happening. Some people refuse to see it because their biases prevent them from doing so. Perhaps they are heavily invested in U.S. stocks and don't want to believe that the party is over. Perhaps they are incapable of admitting when they are wrong. It is hard to say. They argued for years that the Fed would never take the punch bowl away and they have been proven incorrect, but until they suffer direct consequences to their pocketbooks, they will not accept reality. Fallacy #3: The Fed will return to stimulus Japanese-style This is a very common claim designed to build false hope in markets. Bull rally hucksters and their followers has become so used to the easy life of "BTFD!" (Buy The F#$&ing Dip!) that they will apply any rationalization no matter how absurd in order to keep the fantasy going. The claim is that because Japan's stimulus measures have been "successful" in keeping their markets afloat for at least two decades, this is the most likely strategy for the Fed and other central banks as well. What these people have not considered, though, is the speed at which Japan's central bank bought up assets versus the speed that the Fed bought up assets. The Bank of Japan's balance sheet reached around $4.7 trillion (U.S.) at its peak, and as mentioned, this took decades of accumulation. The Fed's balance sheet hit $4.5 trillion in the span of only eight-10 years. There is a point at which asset purchases and stimulus simply do not have the same effect on markets as they did when those purchases began. Debt starts to weigh heavily on further market gains over time. There is a reason why the Fed is choosing to implode the bubble now — time is running out and they want a controlled demolition rather that a crash with a mind of its own. The printing press is not magical; the basic rules of economics and mathematics still apply. I've also heard the argument that because US GDP is so much larger than Japan's, comparing their central bank balance sheets is "not practical." Meaning, the U.S. has a larger GDP, therefore the Fed should be able to increase its balance sheet much further than Japan has. This claim obviously relies on the notion that "GDP" as it is calculated today is an accurate measure of how much debt burden a nation can carry. If you consider Japan's manufacturing capability alone, the U.S. with all it's outsourcing pales in comparison in terms of economic resiliency. If you also consider that every time the government spends tax dollars these programs are often added to GDP as a form of "production" (this includes Obamacare), then the idea of GDP becomes a joke. The point being, it does not matter how healthy a nation's GDP appears to be, their central bank can only create so much debt before it begins to drag down the core economy. The Fed has reached that limit. Fallacy #4: The Fed Can Hyperinflate Markets Perpetually This is the last-ditch delusion used by stock market addicts and disinformation peddlers to assert that the current bubble can and will be propped up for many years to come, even after the rest of the economy is in dire regression. It is based partially on historic examples of fiscal collapses that led to inflation. Sometimes this inflation flows directly into stock markets while the rest of the system sinks, due to investors looking for a safe haven and also due to central banks manipulating asset prices. This occurred in Weimar Germany during the hyperinflationary route of the 1920s, however, people who make this argument do not know the actual history of that collapse. Germany did indeed see a considerable stock market rally just at the peak of the hyperinflationary crisis, but this period only lasted from 1924 to 1927. In 1927, the Federal Reserve, France and the German central bank intervened to deliberately crash the bubble. While central bankers today still assert the lie that the cause of this downturn was the gold standard, the truth is that it was central bank tightening of monetary policy into an already unstable economic environment that caused the crash. An interesting article on this issue for those that would like a better historical reference is 'With a Bang, Not a Whimper: Pricking Germany's "Stock Market Bubble" in 1927 and the Slide into Depression' by Hans-Joachim Voth. Does any of this sound familiar? It should. This is exactly what the Fed is doing today. In the U.S. for the past decade we have already witnessed our period of inflation in stock prices. Now, the central bank is collapsing the bubble, just as they did in Weimar Germany, just as they did here in the U.S. during the Great Depression as Ben Bernanke admitted in 2002, just as they have done in every market bubble for the past century. There is no eternal market bubble. There never will be. If not for the reason that economic fundamentals make it impossible, then for the reason that crashing these bubbles benefits globalists and banking elitists. The goal? I believe the goal is to consolidate total power over production and labor using the deliberate institution of a poverty-based civilization. Beyond that, the goal is to make the populace perpetually desperate to the point that they are socially malleable. In order for the bankers to establish what they call their "New World Order," they need chaos to tenderize the masses, but they also have to be seen as saviors that deserve to be in a position of authority over the global economy. The need to create disasters so they can then ride in on their white horse and save us from those disasters. Why would central banks continue to perpetuate market bubbles when the destruction of those bubbles gives them opportunities for greater power?

How ‘Diversity Ideology’ Killed the University and Is Infecting America

Daniel Davis / @JDaniel_Davis / Heather Mac Donald / @HMDatMI 

When we think of institutions that shape our nation’s future, many often think of Congress and the White House, but it was John Maynard Keynes, the British economist, who said that a great deal of the change we see in politics and in society at large actually starts with professors, academics, people he called “scribblers a few years back.” Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the new book “The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture”–and someone who’s been studying and writing about that very thing. This is a transcript of an interview on the Sept. 20 episode of The Daily Signal podcast. It was edited for length, style, and clarity.

Daniel Davis: Heather, a typical observer these days who maybe has been around the United States for a couple decades sees a lot of disturbing changes in recent years: new pushes for identity politics, new racial tension, battles over diversity. Those things seemed unimaginable 10 to 15 years ago. You argue in your book that this stuff actually stems back to the university. Give us an idea of how that works.

Heather Mac Donald: Well, from a moment a student steps on campus today, he is inundated with the message that he is in a racist, sexist environment. We’re talking about a college campus right now which is an extraordinarily privileged, opportunity-filled environment. He is told to think of himself in one of three categories: He’s either the oppressed, the oppressor, or, if he shows sufficient enlightenment and he’s one of the oppressors, he can move himself out of the oppressor category into the ally category.

Davis: And what is that? What does that entail? Basically keeping your mouth shut and endorsing everything, endorsing all of the guilt and shame that’s poured on you and then you kind of do eternal penance?

Mac Donald: Yes, exactly. You have to support the poor females that are at risk of their lives and help them simply get through the day of this incredible burden to be a college student and a female.

Davis: So where does this, I mean, when did this really start on university campuses? Surely it started somewhere at a certain time? Does it stem back to the ’60s, ’70s, or is this more kind of a new rehashed racism or identity politics?

Mac Donald: Well, there’s several strands of it. In the ’60s, we had the start of racial preferences, which are an extraordinarily destructive policy that don’t do their alleged beneficiaries any good. But the ’70s was a sort of hiatus moment. Multiculturalism hadn’t hit yet. I went to college in the ’70s, and I view myself as incredibly fortunate in that I was allowed to read Chaucer, Milton, Spenser, and Wordsworth without anybody bitching and moaning about the gonads and melanin of those extraordinarily gifted, sublime authors.

I unfortunately wasted my time studying this very arcane, misguided literary theory called deconstruction, but at least I got to read the greatest books without a chip on my shoulder and without anybody apologizing.

The ’80s came. You had Jesse Jackson at Stanford University leading the student know-nothings, trying to dismantle Stanford’s Western civ requirement with the “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western civ has got to go.” Feminism took over, identity politics took over, and the curriculum has never been the same.

Davis: Give us maybe an idea of when a typical classroom that’s doing what you call deconstruction—a literary class—sits down to read, what would have been considered a classic text? What does it look like now to go through that text?

Mac Donald: Well, in the era of high deconstruction, you would not have been interested in the plot. You would not have been interested in character. You would have been looking for signs that the book itself was meaningless.

I’m setting these phrases out and I don’t expect any listener to understand them because it was such a lunatic way of thinking about language. Nevertheless, it was powerful. It seemed sexy. It seemed like a hidden knowledge about language, but that was the ’70s. That was when it was a mandarin science about language and its impossibility.

Today, deconstruction has morphed into something I would say is more pernicious, which is that you look for … in Shakespeare, you’re looking for signs of racism and sexism. You’re looking for the proto-sins that allegedly created a world of oppression. You are not allowed to lose yourself in beauty. Pastoral poetry is an escape into an imaginary world of the beauties of nature and a retreat from the oppression of civilization. These days, you’re only going to be looking for so-called gender stereotypes.

Davis: So how does that translate into our cultural moment? I could definitely see in your description there that sounds a bit like the cynicism that we see on the left toward people who they consider to be in positions of power, people who bear that guilt. How does that translate?

Mac Donald: It translates into our cultural moment because the same obsession with phantom victimology, the same obsession that to read Shakespeare if you’re a female or an underrepresented minority is to be subjected to life-threatening racism and sexism. And I’m not making this up. This is right out of their words.

That same obsession with victimology has gone quickly into the real world, and people believe that every institution now is racist and sexist in the absence of affirmative racial quotas and gender quotas.

Davis: It’s interesting you mentioned life-threatening victimology because I was reminded of that when the Yale law students wrote a letter against Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, and they were saying that people would die.

Mac Donald: And that view that Kavanaugh was a future murderer … by the time of the hearings, he’s now an actual murderer. One of the Women’s March protesters from the rafters that were trying to shut down the hearings in, again, another instantiation of campus culture transforming the world shouted out, “You are a murderer.” The incredible delusion is just getting worse and worse and worse.

Davis: It seems that, as identity politics takes over, the kind of thing that you’ve just mentioned, the frustrating thing about that is that reason and argument don’t matter anymore.

If you’re from a certain class of people, there’s nothing you can say, there’s no argument you can make that is legitimate or that can be accepted.

Once no one is allowed, once we’ve kind of left the plane of reason that everyone has access to this and everyone can attempt an argument and be considered on a level playing field, then it just seems like chaos and, frankly, oppression.

Mac Donald: Well, it’s a very good observation, Daniel. It operates … what you’re saying about the routing of reason goes on at two levels. Let’s be honest. Everybody has a hard time accepting opposite points of view. Reason is something we all aspire to and we often fail at achieving. We have a tendency, no matter if we’re a liberal or a conservative, to ignore countervailing evidence.

This is something that the scientific method to its enormous credit has liberated us, has conquered want and poverty through trying to overcome those blind spots. But there’s an additional layer to this now, that it’s not just a human failing. The contempt for reason, the inability to follow reason is now, as they say in high theory, being theorized. It’s being affirmatively justified.

Reason and the Enlightenment are being trashed within the academy as themselves sources of oppression. I was the subject of one of these shout-down protests at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Southern California, because I was there to speak about policing and to push back against the Black Lives Matter narrative.

Afterwards, among the numerous student petitions that went out against me justifying the shut down of my speech, there was one that came from so-called students of color at Pomona College, another nearby Southern California college.

I cited this in my book … I urge readers to read it. It is the most extraordinary statement of ignorance that somehow they’re claiming that the pursuit of truth is a way of oppressing minorities, that Enlightenment values are just a way to keep minorities down. The historical ignorance behind this is extraordinary.

In 1860, Frederick Douglass was shut down from a commemoration of the radical abolitionist John Brown. Boston had passed a law saying no abolitionist shall meet. This was what the left is doing today.

Afterwards, Frederick Douglass said, “Free speech is the enemy of tyrants. Five years of free speech in the South would break every chain.” He understood that far from being a tool of oppression, the ability to speak, to challenge power, to speak truth to power—we used to talk about that is what every tyrant fears.

And the most amazing aspect of this current moment is the left, in seizing these tools of oppression and trying to silence nonorthodox speech, are so simplistic in their thinking that they’re unable to reverse the situation and think, “OK, we now control the definition of hate speech, but what if Donald Trump says, ‘OKy, I’m going to start defining hate speech and I’m going to ban it.'” That basic act of objectivity and distancing oneself from one’s own position is apparently beyond the left, the capacity of these leftists.

Davis: Yeah. Being committed to the rule of law you’d think would be in everyone’s interests.

Mac Donald: Everyone’s interest in a level playing field.

Davis: In the long term.

Mac Donald: Right. Because you’re not always going to be on top.

Davis: You’re not always in power.

Mac Donald: Right.

Davis: It’s so true. Well, last question for you. I want to ask you if there’s any hope because so many universities have been taken over by this mentality. And they’re the ones turning out the next generation of students. Of course, you’ve got pockets of certain universities that aren’t like that.

Mac Donald: Right.

Davis: Is there a way back into those universities to renew them and to get rid of this so that the future generations are not tainted by it or are there other ways to capture the next generation outside the universities?

Mac Donald: It’s the final question. It is the most important question, and I’m still struggling with the answer to be perfectly honest. I am heartened by students on campuses that are showing incredible courage in pushing back against this.

I was not political during college. I was a default liberal because I hadn’t thought about it, but I didn’t have to take sides. Today, you kind of have to. And I’m in awe of these conservative students who have the courage to do the affirmative action bake sales and to write about the campus diversity bureaucracy and its extraordinary wastefulness. They need encouragement. They need support.

I think what we … in an ideal world, and again, this is what needs to happen. I don’t know how you do it yet. What needs to happen is people have to beat back this myth that America is fundamentally racist and sexist and that college campuses are places of oppression.

People have to destroy that because as long as that remains the dominant view, the push to censor and silence nonorthodox speech will continue in the name of protection and safety because the equation that is used is that these vulnerable females and underrepresented minorities are at existential threat.

Hate speech, which is an increasingly capacious term, puts them at existential threat. Therefore, in order to preserve their very existence, we need to silence hate speech because they’re under such threat.

As long as people don’t challenge that, as long as they don’t say, “Excuse me, you’re the most privileged human beings in history to be on a college campus,” then that is going to continue.

Donors certainly have to stop funneling billions into their alma maters that allow this diversity ideology to grow. Please do not give to your college campus unless you’re certain that it is committed to teaching the classics with love, reverence, and gratitude.

Davis: Well, the book is called “The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.” Heather Mac Donald, thanks for being on the podcast.

Mac Donald: Thank you for such a wonderful conversation, Daniel. I appreciate it.

Thank you to all who gave their endorsement for the November 2018 Election

Thank You for Your Endorsement

South Suburban Republican Women’s Organization

Illinois Family Action PAC

Coalition For Better Government

Lockport Township Republicans

Homer Township Republicans

Orland & Palos Township Republicans

Will County Republican Central Committee

Will County Young Republicans

New Lenox Township Republicans

Chicago Land Operators Joint Labor-Management PAC

IBEW Illinois PAC

Will Grundy Building Trades &Council PAC

Iron Workers Local Union 444 IPAL Fund

Voluntary Political Action Committee IBEW

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150

Some of what Mike Fricilone & Steve Balich have  ACCOMPLISHED  for you

1. Lowered the tax rate the last 3 years while at the same time building a New Public Safety Building, Court House,  Health Department, and starting a program to replace squad cars on a yearly basis.

2. Stopped code violations initiated by aerial Photos. Code violations are now complaint driven.

3. Reduced the tax rate for the last 3 years.

4. Stopped mandatory sprinkler systems from being required in all homes.

5. Passed a Resolution allowing the Court to return your money for towing, storage, and administration if not guilty in court.

6. Stopped the County from putting raised barriers on 143rd St.

7. Continue to vote against raises for County wide and County Board elected officials.

8. Stopped light ordinance that had no measurements relying on the opinion of Code officers as to what is a nuisance.

9. Argue that code inspectors can only inspect what a permit was written for. They don't have the right to write violations for other items out of code.

10. Worked with Lockport to move barricades north of Gougar and 147th, allowing for cars to cut through like the past from 151st over to Lemont rd/State via 147th.  A signal was placed at Gougar and 143rd.

11. Worked with Citizens Utility board to reduce the rate increase from Illinois American Water. The Rate increase was reduced but we still got an increase to an already high cost of water.

12. Voted to not allow County Board Elected Officials to take the IMRF Pension.

13. Worked to get the light at RT. 6 and Parker.

14. Stopped Will county Land Use from initiating a rental inspection program targeting 17,000 plus landlords based on HUD guidelines. Will County never adopted HUD guidelines.

15. Stopped requiring a building permit for some repair and maintenance items on your property.

16. Cut the Tax Rate at the Forest Preserve the last 4 years while expanding recreational opportunities.

17. Since we have be on the Board there have been no pay raise for County Elected officials and County Board member Pensions were eliminated. Fricilone & Balich never took the Pension even though it was a benefit.

Mike Fricilone 708-310-9831 mikefricilone@gmail.com    Steve Balich 815-557-7196 sbalich@comcast.net

Politicize it

Steve Balich Editors note:
The desire of the Media/Democrat Party,is to protect illegals. I guess they need a new voting block and illegals who are not supposed to vote are that block. The idea of treating illegals better than citizens is appalling. How many times do citizens need to be arrested before they are locked up. Crimes committed by illegals should never happen because the illegal alien should not be here in the first place.So in an effort to get more votes Democrats are willing to put  public safety at  risk.

http://thewillcountynews.blogspot.com/2018/08/judge-joliet-rapist-had-ice-deportation.html



Politicize it  By Ben Crystal
An illegal alien was responsible for the murder of 20-year-old Mollie Tibbetts. The revelation that Christhian Rivera, a Mexican national who apparently used false identification to obtain work in the Iowa town near which he committed the crime, had stalked and stabbed her to death, threw a spotlight back on the illegal immigration crisis plaguing America. While conservatives pointed to the increasingly obvious need for stricter controls, liberals hammered conservatives for politicizing a tragedy.

Flash forward five days, and a psycho opened fire on a video gaming tournament. And all of a sudden, the liberal ban on politicizing tragedy had been radically amended. Well before anyone knew the killer's name, much less the victims' circumstances, all the cool anti-liberty kids, most of whom support unfettered illegal immigration, were racing to be first to politicize the hell out Jacksonville like a bunch of fat kids trying to squeeze through the same door.

I say we should be politicizing both, because both are politically sensitive issues, and shying away from politically sensitive issues guarantees only that they'll never be healed. But it's worth noting that examining the politics of both of these — along with many other violence-related issues — isn't going to work out the way the left think it will.

In the case of Mollie Tibbetts, there can be no doubt that the liberals' active — and often legislative — efforts to protect illegal aliens from justice led directly to her murder. The refusal of Democrats to allow ICE to their jobs might as well have put the knife in Rivera's hand. As leftists were demanding — often violently — that we "abolish ICE," Rivera was killing Mollie Tibbetts. As celebrities staged their photo-ops at detention centers for illegal aliens, another illegal alien was killing Mollie Tibbetts. As Democrat politicians were patting themselves on their backs for standing firm on "sanctuary cities," a beneficiary of lax immigration enforcement was killing Mollie Tibbetts.

In the case of the Jacksonville shootings, there can be no case made to implicate the NRA, the GOP or gun owners in the crime. The NRA doesn't support people like David Katz. In fact, the NRA has repeatedly called for policies and programs which make it harder for people David Katz to succeed. They certainly don't endorse the idea of letting people who represent a threat to others wander free, unconcerned with an armed response in a "gun-free" zone. Besides, disarming a guy in Alaska isn't going to prevent a shooting in Florida. It will raise the odds of a shooting in Alaska. And disarming guys in Florida isn't likely to stop the homicidal rage of someone who thinks murder is an appropriate way to deal with losing a bloody video game.

We should absolutely politicize what happened in Jacksonville. We should examine the politics of blaming the wrong people for crime. We should discuss the fact that anti-gun laws deter criminals and crazy people about as effectively as "gun-free zone" signs. We should delve into the demonstrable drop in gun-related crime which has coincided with the relaxation of anti-gun laws and rise in civilian firearm ownership. We should dig deep into the statistical correlation between higher — even epidemic — levels of gun related crime in cities which boast more stringent anti-gun laws.

And we should do the same for Mollie Tibbets, Kate Steinle and the endless list of victims of illegal alien violence. When is CNN going to present a town hall on illegal aliens like the one they devoted to Parkland? Where are the fawning magazine cover stories dedicated to the victims and the survivors who have dedicated their time and lives to bringing awareness to the plague of illegal aliens? Where are the hordes of protesters demanding justice for the dozens of people murdered in gun-free utopias like Chicago? Where is The New York Times exposé on the horrors of the Islamofascist compound in New Mexico and the inextricable linkage between radical Islam and violence? Politicize that.

Get a Ballot for the November Election Mailed to you

Will you be riding the RED WAVE in November?

After Labor Day there are only 7 weeks before Early Voting begins!!!!!

 

Ask yourself…….

• What am I doing to insure there is a RED WAVE on November 6^th?
• What am I doing to help get the Republican Vote out?
• How many doors have I knocked on to inform people of the importance?
• How many people can I reach over the Labor Day week-end?

 

You are only one, but still you are one;

You cannot do everything, but you can do something;

Because you cannot do everything,

Do not refuse to do the something you can.

If you live in Will County call the County Clerk 815-740-4626 and ask for a Ballot to be mailed to your home. Get a Ballot for your Children either sent to them at school or to your home. No reason necessary. 

If you are in other counties call your County Clerks office.

 

VOTE!

November 6th

Early Voting by mail Begins September 27th but you can request a ballot now.  October 22nd at polling locations.