#Secretary Sebelius

[masterofd1saster]

CJ court watch NM firearms case 13sep23

The U.S. District Court restrained the governor from enforcing her emergency order in National Assoc. for Gun Rights v. Grisham, 23 cv 771 (D.N.M. Sep. 13, 2023).

*** On September 7, 2023, responding to a rise in mass shootings and gun-related deaths, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (“the Governor”) issued Executive Order 2023-130 (“EO”) declaring a state of public health emergency “of unknown duration” due to gun violence. Exec. Order No. 2023-130, (Sept. 07, 2023). The Governor's EO directed the New Mexico State Departments of Public Health, Homeland Security and Emergency Management, and Public Safety to collaborate with the Governor's officer to provide a coordinated response to implement the EO. The following day, on September 8, 2023, New Mexico Department of Health Secretary Patrick M. Allen (“Secretary Allen”) issued a “Public Health Emergency Order Imposing Temporary Firearm Restrictions, Drug Monitoring and Other Public Safety Measures” (“PHO”) pursuant to his authority to preserve and promote public health and safety. PHO (N.M. Dep't of Health Sept. 8, 2023). Among other prohibitions in the PHO, Section (1) restricts open or concealed possession of a firearm by any person, other than by a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, “within cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021 according to [the] Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program AND more than 90 firearm-related emergency department visits per 100,000 residents from June 2022 to June 2023 according to” the Public Health Department. Id. at § 1(A).*** 1. Plaintiffs Have Established a Likelihood of Success on the Merits Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits that their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights to publicly carry a firearm for self-defense will be violated if the PHO remains in effect. *** 2. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent an Injunction The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have shown they will suffer irreparable harm if a temporary injunction is not issued. “A plaintiff suffers irreparable injury when [a] court [is] unable to grant an effective monetary remedy after a full trial because such damages would be inadequate or difficult to ascertain.”*** 3. The Temporary Restraining Order Will Not Be Adverse to the Public Interest Plaintiffs have shown that the Temporary Restraining Order will not be adverse to the public interest. As the Tenth Circuit has stated, “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party's constitutional rights[.]” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Moreover, a state “does not have an interest in enforcing a law that is likely constitutionally infirm.” Chamber of Com. of U.S. v. Edmondson, 594 F.3d 742, 771 (10th Cir. 2010). Although the State of New Mexico raises important safety concerns, at this stage it fails to demonstrate that the public safety concerns overcome the public's interest in preventing constitutional violations. *** 4. The Balance of Equities Favor Plaintiffs The balance of equities weigh in favor of issuing a TRO. As noted “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party's constitutional rights[.]” Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1145; see id. at 1147 (finding that the balance of equities favored First Amendment plaintiffs where they faced “the Hobson's choice between catastrophic fines or violating [their] religious beliefs.”) Because the PHO likewise subjects “[a]ny person or entity” to “civil administrative penalties available at law,” the Plaintiffs face the choice of either facing fines or violating their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. Id. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have shown that the balance of equities weigh in their favor.***

[absolute-immunities]

Personal takes:

The liberals were right in NFIB v Sebelius, 567 US 519 (2012): Congress can condition Medicaid reimbursement rates on coverage standards.

The conservatives were right in King v Burwell, 576 US 473 (2015): “the State” in “established by the State” doesn’t include the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The Court was right in California v Texas, 141 S Ct 2104 (2021): a $0 ‘penalty’ isn’t a cognizable injury.

The Roberts CJ plurality on the Spending Clause, joined by Breyer and Kagan JJ, is as ridiculous today as the day it was decided.

Here, the Government claims that the Medicaid expansion is properly viewed merely as a modification of the existing program because the States agreed that Congress could change the terms of Medicaid when they signed on in the first place. The Government observes that the Social Security Act, which includes the original Medicaid provisions, contains a clause expressly reserving "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of that statute. 42 U.S.C. § 1304. So it does. But "if Congress intends to impose a condition on the grant of federal moneys, it must do so unambiguously." Pennhurst, 451 U.S., at 17. A State confronted with statutory language reserving the right to "alter" or "amend" the pertinent provisions of the Social Security Act might reasonably assume that Congress was entitled to make adjustments to the Medicaid program as it developed. Congress has in fact done so, sometimes conditioning only the new funding, other times both old and new. See, e.g., Social Security Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 1381–1382, 1465 (extending Medicaid eligibility, but partly conditioning only the new funding); Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, § 4601, 104 Stat. 1388–166 (extending eligibility, and conditioning old and new funds).

The Medicaid expansion, however, accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree. The original program was designed to cover medical services for four particular categories of the needy: the disabled, the blind, the elderly, and needy families with dependent children. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10). Previous amendments to Medicaid eligibility merely altered and expanded the boundaries of these categories. Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health care needs of the entire nonelderly population with income below 133 percent of the poverty level. It is no longer a program to care for the neediest among us, but rather an element of a comprehensive national plan to provide universal health insurance coverage.

The argument that extending Medicaid to people “below 133 percent of the poverty level” makes it “no longer a program to care for the neediest among us” does not pass the laugh test.

It’s barely distinguishable from what Congress did in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, § 4601, 104 Stat 1388–166, which extended Medicaid coverage to families of minor children up to 100 percent of the poverty level, and extended the class of covered children from children under eight to children under nineteen.

Gisburg J also notes the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988, §302, 102 Stat 750, and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, §6401, 103 Stat 2258, which “required participating States to include among their beneficiaries pregnant women with family incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level [and] children up to age 6 at the same income levels.”

Those enactments, Roberts CJ concludes, amended but continued the program created by the Social Security Amendments of 1965, §121(a), 79 Stat 343, but the Affordable Care Act of 2010, which extended coverage to “the entire nonelderly population with income below 133 percent of the poverty level,” repealed and replaced it.

Beyond its careless ontology, the Roberts CJ plurality fails to find either a constitutional basis for its limitations on the Spending Clause or a workable standard for identifying coercion.

On the former count, the Roberts CJ plurality discovers that the Spending Clause protects State interest in having federal disbursements to their citizens continued on substantially unchanged terms.

Congress can create new programs, with new funding, but “Congress is not free . . . to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.”

The plurality infers that prohibition from the Court’s anticommandeering and Spending Clause precedents, the latter of which found the principle implicit in “Congress shall have Power . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

Maybe your copy of the Constitution includes a term barring Congress from “taking away [the States’] existing Medicaid funding,” but I can’t find it in mine.

On the latter count—the coercion standard—the plurality doesn’t even try:

The Court in Steward Machine did not attempt to “fix the outermost line” where persuasion gives way to coercion. 301 U. S., at 591. The Court found it “[e]nough for present purposes that wherever the line may be, this statute is within it.” Ibid. We have no need to fix a line either. It is enough for today that wherever that line may be, this statute is surely beyond it.

For Roberts CJ, coercion is like hardcore pornography. He knows it when he sees it.

It’s remarkable to think that Breyer and Kagan JJ joined the Spending Clause part of the opinion in full. It strikes me as unusually lawless, even for a federalism case.

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

Everyone that understands the playbook of the ruling class has been warning from the start that the endgame was total medical tyranny and we were called "conspiracy theorists" for it. Now here we are.

[jax4590]

Follow along carefully...

Everyone should take the time to read this. Slowly, and patiently, because it’s very important.

From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. A Grand Jury had been impaneled. Governments from around the world had donated to the “Charity”.

Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those “Donations” to the Clinton Foundation were declared. Now you would think that an honest investigator would be able to figure this out.

Look who took over this investigation in 2005, none other than James Comey. Coincidence?

Guess who was transferred into the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? None other than, Lois Lerner. Isn’t that interesting?

But this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?

Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Justice from 2001 to 2005? None other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.

Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame? Another coincidence (just an anomaly in statistics and chances), but it was Robert Mueller.

What do all four casting characters have in common? They all were briefed and/or were front-line investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation. Another coincidence, right?

Fast forward to 2009. James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin. Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, official government business, on her own personal email server. The Uranium One “issue” comes to the attention of Hillary. Like all good public servants do, supposedly looking out for America’s best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians. Now, you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn’t. America got absolutely nothing out of it.

However, prior to the sales approval, none other than Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid $500,000 for

a one hour speech; then meets with Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours. Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside the money laundering and bribery scheme.

Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during this time frame. He even delivered a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009. Who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney’s Office in Maryland? None other than, Rod Rosenstein.

And what happened to the informant? The Department of Justice placed a gag order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke out about it.

How does 20% of the most strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands when the FBI has an informant, a mole providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise?

Very soon after; the sale was approved. $145 million dollars in “donations” made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal. Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division? None other than, Lois Lerner.

Ok, that’s all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right? Let’s fast forward to 2015. Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the 9 “investigations” the House, Senate and at State Department, Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi discovers that Hillary ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server. He also discovered that none of

those emails had been turned over when she departed her “Public Service” as Secretary of State which was required by law. He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email.

Sparing you the State Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth

from the necks of the Kerry State Department, we shall leave it with this, they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.

.

Now this is amazing, guess who became FBI Director in 2013? None other than James Comey, who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer

(Lockheed Martin) with the State Department and was rewarded with a $6 million dollar thank you present

when he departed his employer? Amazing how all those no-bids just went right through at the State Department. Now he is the FBI Director in charge of the “Clinton Email Investigation” after of course his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner “Matter” at the Internal Revenue Service and he exonerates her. Nope, couldn’t find any crimes there.

In April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy.They didn’t even convene a Grand Jury! Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true “Gangsta” Comey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July 5th of 2016, and exonerates Hillary from any wrongdoing.

Do you see the pattern?

It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Assistant Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation sham by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.

FISA abuse, political espionage pick a crime, any crime, chances are this group and a few others did it:

All the same players.

All compromised and conflicted.

All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves.

All connected in one way or another to the Clinton's.

They are like battery acid; they corrode and corrupt everything they touch. How many lives have these two destroyed?

As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service. Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.

The person that is the common denominator to all the crimes above and still doing her evil escape legal maneuvers at the top of the 3 Letter USA Agencies? Yes, that would be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Let’s learn a little about Mrs. Lisa H. Barsoomian’s background. Lisa H. Barsoomian, an Attorney that graduated from Georgetown Law, is a protégé of James Comey and Robert Mueller. Barsoomian, with her boss R. Craig Lawrence, represented Bill Clinton in 1998.

Lawrence also represented;

Robert Mueller three times,

James Comey five times,

Barack Obama 45 times,

Kathleen Sebelius 56 times,

Bill Clinton 40 times,

and Hillary Clinton 17 times.

Between 1998 and 2017, Barsoomian herself represented the FBI at least five times.

You may be saying to yourself, who cares about the work history of this Barsoomian woman? Apparently, someone does, because someone out there cares so much that they’ve “purged” all Barsoomian court documents for her Clinton representation in Hamburg vs. Clinton in 1998 and its appeal in 1999 from the DC District and Appeals Court dockets.

Someone out there cares so much that even the internet has been “purged” of all information pertaining to Barsoomian.

Historically, this indicates that the individual is a protected CIA operative. Additionally, Lisa Barsoomian has specialized in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence community. Although, Barsoomian has been involved in hundreds of cases representing the DC Office of the US Attorney, her email address is LisaBarsoomian@NIH.gov. The NIH stands for National Institutes of Health. This is a tactic routinely used by the CIA to protect an operative by using another government organization to shield their activities. It’s a cover, so big deal right? What does one more attorney with ties to the US intelligence community really matter?

It deals with Trump and his recent tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum imports, the border wall, DACA, everything coming out of California, the Uni-party unrelenting opposition to President Trump, the Clapper leaks, the Comey leaks, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusal and subsequent 14 month nap with occasional forays into the marijuana legalization mix and last but not least Mueller’s never-ending investigation into collusion between the Trump team and the Russians.

Why does Barsoomian, CIA operative, merit any mention? Because she is Assistant Attorney General Rod

Rosenstein’s wife.

Source - Tom Tancredo/Team America

[yerbevan]

So I was in the hospital all night with chest pain. I went to the local pharmacy to fill a prescription for pain pills, but did not get the usual attitude of hostility and suspicion.

Every American president since Richard Nixon has vowed to be 'tough on drugs' until we have reached a point of complete insanity. A too cheap, too easy pronouncement during a political campaign, and always elicits a round of applause. Drug policy is the only part of Barack Obama's legacy that is evil and wrong.

Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration, was instrumental in ratcheting up the policy once again. People across our country are suffering as a result.

Please. Joe. Promise you will not take it to another level.

I have seen the 'earnest testimony' of drug addicts blaming their problem on a dentist or a doctor: 'Same old story I went to the dentist then had to get street drugs and shoot up had no choice not my fault.'

It is your fault. I am familiar with 12-step recovery. If you continue to blame your problem on someone else you are doomed to repeat the same mistake again and again. No dentist, no doctor, advised you to get Chinese Fentanyl off the street and put it in your veins. I shudder in horror just thinking about it. 

I never did such a thing, but the addicts among us must be treated with compassion, not condemnation. They are suffering from addictive disease. 

Your fault, your problem. Admit it, take personal responsibility for your own behaviour, and get on the road to recovery. I wish you well. --Bevan

----------------------------------

Kathleen Sebelius

---------------------------------------

Barack Obama

[madamspeaker]

Watch it all the way through. It’s an utter delight of a video - Nancy is really rather into it by the end.

During a tribute to now sadly late Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., the longest serving Congressman in American history, Mary Wilson of the Supremes asked then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., and others, including Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and Lynda Carter, to join her onstage in a rendition of the hit song "Stop! In the Name of Love." Hilarity ensued.

[bountyofbeads]

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/1939-law-kellyanne-conway-accused-violating/story?id=63719007&__twitter_impression=true

HAPPENING NOW: House Oversight Committee holds hearing on Kellyanne Conway's alleged Hatch Act violations.

@ABC

https://t.co/MByP72oTdr

MORE: In an unprecedented move, the Office of Special Counsel described Conway as a "repeat offender" of the Hatch Act and recommended she be removed from federal service.

"Ms. Conway's conduct undermines public confidence in the Executive branch and compromises the civil service system that the Hatch Act was intended to protect," Kerner wrote.

"The sheer number of occurrences underscores the egregious nature of her violations."

What you should know about the 1939 law Kellyanne Conway is accused of violating

By Alexander Mallin | Published Jun 14, 2019, 3:21 PM ET |

President Donald Trump rushed to the defense of one of his top political advisers on Friday, after a federal watchdog accused White House counselor Kellyanne Conway of violating a law that bars some government employees of engaging in political activity while acting in their official capacities.

In an unprecedented move, the Office of Special Counsel described Conway as a "repeat offender" of the Hatch Act and recommended she be removed from federal service.

"It looks to me like they’re trying to take away her right of free speech," Trump said in an interview with Fox and Friends Friday. "No, I’m not going to fire her.”

It's not the first time a Trump Administration official has been found to have run afoul of the 1939 law, but the most recent dramatic feud has left many with questions as to what exactly the Hatch Act is, whether it conflicts with First Amendment rights to free speech, and why those close to the president are able to allegedly violate it with no apparent consequences.

What is the Hatch Act?

The Hatch Act was originally passed in 1939 following allegations that employees of a New Deal agency dubbed the Works Progress Administration had used their official positions to benefit the Democratic Party. The act sought to outlaw bribery and coercion of voters by public officials and placed restrictions on federal employees from engaging in certain political activities.

It has been significantly amended in the decades since, and has withstood several challenges in front of the Supreme Court regarding concerns it overly restricts employees' free speech rights.

Under the current version of the law, federal employees in the executive branch are prohibited from using their official positions "for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election," according to the OSC. In past decades, the Hatch Act has been in the headlines in cases where top officials in the Trump, Obama and Bush administrations have been found to have advocated for a particular party or candidate while acting or being identified by their official titles.

The law generally doesn't prohibit employees from acts such as placing campaign slogans or signage on their personal property, or expressing their political opinions at work as long as that isn't done for the express purpose of engaging in campaign-related activity on behalf of a particular candidate or cause.

Federal employees deemed "further restricted employees" are held to different standards under the act, however, and generally face more stringent conditions regarding their abilities to engage in political activity like attending campaign events or conventions, or handing out fliers at polling places, for instance.

Can you be punished for violating the Hatch Act?

Yes. According to the OSC, all civilian employees serving in the executive branch of government -- with the exception of the President and Vice President, are subject to scrutiny under the Hatch Act.

Federal employees found in violation of the Hatch Act by the independent Merit Systems Protection Board can face punishment such as removal from federal service, a point reinforced in Special Counsel Henry Kerner's letter to Trump regarding Conway's alleged violations.

"If Ms. Conway were any other federal employee, her multiple violations of the law would almost certainly result in removal from her federal position by the Merit Systems Protection Board," said Kerner, who previously served under former Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz on the House Oversight Committee and was appointed to the position by Trump in 2017. "Ms. Conway's violations, if left unpunished, send a message to all federal employees that they need not abide by the Hatch Act's restrictions."

However, presidential appointees who are a part of the Executive Office of the President aren't subject to the same accountability as other executive branch employees and can't be punished or removed in the same fashion as the rest of the executive branch workforce.

In the case of close advisers to the president, as in Conway's case, or even Cabinet officials, the final determination on how to handle Hatch Act violations is left in the hands of the President.

President Barack Obama similarly didn't discipline his former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in 2012 when she was found in violation of the Hatch Act, or his HUD Secretary Julian Castro, who was found in violation of the Hatch Act for a 2016 interview in which he praised Hillary Clinton.

However, both of those officials released statements apologizing following the OSC's investigations -- while Conway has remained defiant and not apologized or even acknowledged her alleged violations, according to the OSC.

What is Kellyanne Conway accused of doing?

In his 17-page report to the president, Kerner chronicles what he describes as multiple blatant violations of the Hatch Act by Conway in TV appearances and activity on her Twitter account, @KellyannePolls.

The report followed a separate determination by the OSC in March of 2018 that Conway had violated the act when she advocated against Alabama Democratic Sen. Doug Jones' candidacy in his race against Republican Roy Moore.

But that report did not sway Conway from changing her tune in multiple TV interviews this year, in which she attacked other Democratic candidates including Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Beto O'Rourke and former Vice President Joe Biden.

One of the political tweets from Conway flagged by the OSC displayed a collection of pictures showing the faces of several female Democratic senators watching the president's State of the Union Speech, that was captioned with "He's got this. #2020I'mWithHim."

"By engaging in political activity while speaking in her official capacity, Ms. Conway used her official authority or influence for the purpose of affecting the result of an election in violation of the Hatch Act," the OSC report reads. "The sheer number of occurrences underscores the egregious nature of her violations."

Kerner notes that Conway was recently confronted by a reporter in one instance where she engaged in political speech, to which Conway shot back sarcastically, "Let me know when the jail sentence starts."

Isn't Conway just engaging in First Amendment-protected speech?

President Trump is far from the first person to question whether the Hatch Act puts a muzzle on what most Americans would consider First Amendment-protected speech.

In his letter responding to Kerner's report on Conway, White House counsel Pat Cipollone argued the "OSC's overbroad and unsupported interpretation of the Hatch Act risks violating Ms. Conway's First Amendment rights and chills the free speech of all government employees."

But proponents of the law argue that it does a public service in separating the official functions of the U.S. government from the partisan battles seen in elections.

For instance, a majority opinion issued in a Supreme Court challenge to the Hatch Act in 1947 upheld the law on the basis that political activity could disrupt the very ability for government agencies to function, saying free speech had to be weighed against “the requirements of orderly administration of administrative personnel."

Separately, advocates argue that allowing federal employees to mix their official duties with political advocacy risks corruption, and officials being able to wield their government titles in a way that elevates their voice over the common citizen.

That thinking appears to be reflected in Kerner's report, in which he admonishes Conway as a "repeat offender," and makes the case that if she isn't subject to discipline it could diminish the OSC's ability to enforce the act entirely.

"Ms. Conway's conduct undermines public confidence in the Executive branch and compromises the civil service system that the Hatch Act was intended to protect," Kerner wrote.

[kqduane]

Until Christian men stop being taken-in by women’s appearances and foolishly judging them based on their own personal standards of behavior, they are going to continue to get buried alive!

Hello! Today’s young women are NOT who you think they are! They may be well-dressed, highly educated, well-spoken and cosmopolitan but they are NOT your kind of woman. They are, in many cases, a modern-day version of “The Portrait of Dorian Gray”, beautiful and charming on the outside and rotten-to-the-core on the inside. And it would serve Christian men well, to stop them in their tracks because they are out to get you! See my “Current EVEntS” posts for dozens of examples.

Most women under 60 are living lives defined by duplicity. They portray themselves in public as respectable, responsible, loving and sensitive, when in reality they have been trained by radical feminism to instead be banshees of irrational thinking, subliminally motivated by their combined rage against Christian men and the values these men represent.

These women, who hold millions of influential positions within all of our great institutions, including business, media, military, judiciary, academia, organized religion, politics, banking, and medicine are more of a threat to America’s continued success than any potential foreign enemy because their mission is misunderstood by the men who interact with them on a daily basis. In many cases, the women themselves are unaware of the damage they are inflicting on their country (and their personal lives) through their irrational attachment to radical feminist ideology.

#gallery-0-11 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-11 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-0-11 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-11 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

Thanks to forty-five years of subliminal indoctrination by lesbian-led, radical second-wave feminist academia, these twisted feminists actually view Christian men as the “enemy.” And as a result, they are deliberately destroying the major American institutions that Christian ideals built, for the simple reason that their non-Christian feminist leaders consider everything that these men touched to be “oppressive” and “domineering” towards women. These twisted women are convinced that Christian men have traditionally placed unacceptable “limits” on women’s ability to “be all that they can be.” The outcome of these misguided feminist theories have left millions of feminist women unable to determine why they are left defining their lives through misery.

These ridiculous women have been convinced by lesbian-led, radical, feminist academia to hate Christian men, not only for what they stand for, but also for what they will not stand for, including homosexuality. These women tend to be rabid pro-abortionists as well because radical feminism has irrationally trained these gullible women to believe that the sacrament of marriage and the miracle of motherhood are albatrosses, deliberately placed around women’s neck, by Christian men.

Radical feminists view marriage, as a “burden” and a “hindrance”, “chaining” women to husbands and children, while they “toil away their lives in domestic servitude.” Feminists have convinced these weak-minded women that Christian men have in the past, denied women the highest form of female fulfillment – a CAREER!

They irrationally believe that these men stand in the way of women’s only avenue to  “emancipation” from domestic toil. And, more astoundingly, they have been convinced by radical feminism that children have become expendable, justifiably aborted to advance their “careers goals”, or to buy a new boat or to take a trip to Europe. With these twisted female priorities, is it any wonder that our country is a mess?

#gallery-0-12 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-12 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-0-12 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-12 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

Kathleen Sebelius – Former Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Democrat

Oprah Winfrey, 60, – Talk Show Hostess, Actress, Producer and Philanthropist

Ruth Bader-Ginsburg

Politician Hillary Clinton, 68

Nancy Pelosi, 73 – Democrat Minority Leader U. S. House of Representatives. She Represents San Francisco, California

The fact is that all of America’s great institutions, into which these twisted women have for decades been insinuating themselves, were initially established, centuries ago, by highly religious, moral and ethical Christian men. Their Christian faith, their work ethic and their high standards of moral and ethical behavior were the foundations for their success and were the reason their institutions flourished.

These great men trusted each other do what God would expect them to do, under all circumstances. They all played by the same God-given rules and this created one of the most productive, peaceful, pleasant and prosperous countries in the history of the world.  “A man was only as good as his word” and Andrew Carnegie and J. P. Morgan proved this splendidly when, in 1901, Carnegie sold his company, Carnegie Steel (valued at the time at $480 million dollars), to financier J. P. Morgan, on a handshake – no written contract, just Christian faith in each other.

Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) – American Industrialist and Philanthropist

J. P. Morgan (1837-1913) – American Financier, Philanthropist and Art Collector

The institutions these great men established outlived their founders, and continued to thrive well after their deaths, for good reason – the men they had mentored to replace them were also honest Christian men. They were men who lived their faith, both privately and publicly.

These men understood well, that they were accountable to a much higher authority than themselves, and as a result, they operated their institutions and their lives with the fear-of-God ingrained in their very souls. These men brought that same, deeply held, sense of personal hard work, accountability, integrity, good character, trustworthiness and honesty wherever they went. And it was certainly not just reserved for their church pew on Sunday, it went everywhere with them, but most especially to work.

No one can run any  institution successfully, including marriage, without trust and trust is only attainable when an individual internalize the teachings of his Christian faith. Despite the secularists assertions, goodness, honesty and trustworthiness is not produced out of thin air, they must be taught, and they must be grounded in faith in order to stick. Christianity is what separated these great men from the rabble and, although it is harder to determine today, Christianity continues to separate great men from the bowels of radical feminism and the deceit it employs, i.e. Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton.

These great Christian men were not willing to sacrifice their own salvation for political points, cash or anything else. They recognized the inequality of character traits that were distributed among men by God and they unenviably sought to acknowledge, encourage, mentor and follow the men who were the most gifted in their chosen fields. And, this acknowledged understanding among these Christian men allowed for great feats of personal accomplishment. They trusted and supported each other’s undertakings.

This understanding among Christian men is what’s missing today. The Christian principles they revered and the trust they generated among themselves, which trickled down to everyone in their separate spheres of influence, has been annihilated as more and more radical feminist women have replaced these principles with priorities based on lying, cheating, stealing, abortion, same-sex marriage, explicit sexuality, divorce, free love, illegitimacy, and adultery. These twisted priorities taint ALL feminist’s judgement and annihilate their good judgement and common sense, politicizing everything in their destructive paths.

Today’s radical feminist leaders believe in an ideology that is diametrically opposed to the principles by which Christian men once defined their lives and their depleted priorities are affecting EVERYONE in their lives. Where these men cooperated on the basis of Godly trust and high standards of behavior, today’s feminists operate on the premise of irrational distrust and hate, deliberately and irrationally criticizing, dismantling and destroying the deep-seated Christian principles that set American men, and their ventures, apart from the rest of the world and onto a path of unprecedented success.

These smiling “career” women are, in many ways, diabolical in their efforts to undermine Christian morality and ethics. And as such, they remain unprincipled, irrational, untrustworthy and a very real threat to Christian ideals and to Christian America as well. They have indeed, replaced their Christian faith with the destructive hate-filled ideology of radical feminism with damning results.

Beware! And be prepared to FIGHT BACK because she is NOT who you think she is.

Short Essay – Men, You Can No Longer Assume That A Woman Is “Good”, Just Because She’s A Woman! Until Christian men stop being taken-in by women's appearances and foolishly judging them based on their own personal standards of behavior, they are going to continue to get buried alive!

[mateobishop]

Health Insurance Is Expanding In The United States

Health Insurance Is Expanding In The United States. As 2013 nears to a close, the year's highest salubrity news story - the fumbled debut of the Affordable Care Act, often dubbed Obamacare - continues to pinch headlines. The Obama conduct had high hopes for its health-care reform package, but technical glitches on the federal government's HealthCare jot gov portal put the brakes on all that found it. Out of the millions of uninsured who stood to good from wider access to health insurance coverage, just six were able to movement up for such benefits on the day of the website's Oct 1, 2014 launch, according to a government memo obtained by the Associated Press. Those numbers didn't acclivity much higher until far into November, when technical crews went to put to on the troubled site, often shutting it down for hours for repairs. Republicans opposed to the Affordable Care Act pounced on the debacle, and a month after the initiate Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius told Americans, "You be worthy of better, I apologize" brazil. Also apologizing was President Barack Obama, who in November said he was "sorry" to heed that some Americans were being dropped from their health plans due to the advent of reforms - even though he had frequently promised that this would not happen. However, by year's end the situation began to countenance a bit rosier for backers of health-care reform. By Dec 11, 2013, Health and Human Services announced that nearly 365000 consumers had successfully selected a well-being plan through the federal- and state-run online "exchanges," although that copy was still far below initial projections effects. And a report issued the same lifetime found that one new tenet of the reform package - allowing young adults under 26 to be covered by their parents' plans - has led to a significant hike in coverage for people in that age group. Another chronicle dominating health news headlines in the first half of the year was the announcement by film act Angelina Jolie in May that she carried the BRCA breast cancer gene mutation and had opted for a stand-in mastectomy to lessen her cancer risk. In an op-ed piece in The New York Times, Jolie said her mother's old death from BRCA-linked ovarian cancer had played a big lines in her decision. The article immediately sparked discussion on the BRCA mutations, whether or not women should be tested for these anomalies, and whether inhibitive mastectomy was warranted if they tested positive. A Harris Interactive/HealthDay sample conducted in August found that, following Jolie's announcement, 5 percent of respondents - interchangeable to about 6 million US women - said they would now seek medical notification on the issue. Americans also struggled with the psychological impact of two acts of horrific violence - the December 2012 Newtown, Conn, equip massacre that left 20 children and six adults downright and the bombing of the Boston marathon in April of this year. Both tragedies left absorbed wounds on the hearts and minds of people at the scenes, as well as the tens of millions of Americans who watched the killing through the media. Indeed, a study released in December suggested that people who had spent hours each epoch tracking coverage of the Boston bombing had stress levels that were often higher than some people actually on the scene. Major changes to the sense doctors are advised to care for patients' hearts also spurred spat in 2013. In November, a panel from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology issued guidelines that could greatly swell the number of Americans taking cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. One month later, an non-affiliated panel of experts issued its own recommendations on the control of high blood compel - guidelines that might shrink the number of people who take blood pressure drugs. Both recommendations ignited debate as to their validity, and debate on these issues is likely to continue, experts say. Contraception is another medical young that's no stranger to controversy. In June, the US Food and Drug Administration sparked both cheering and outrage when it moved the Plan B "morning after" drug to over-the-counter status, with no age restrictions in place. The move came after protracted judiciary battles, led by the Obama administration, to prevent such access. Other stories making headlines in 2013 included. Higher numbers of children diagnosed and treated for ADHD. One in every 10 US children is now diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced in November, although the power also said the years-long happen in cases has begun to slow. And while some experts bring up better diagnosis of ADHD is eat one's heart out overdue, many Americans worry that children are being "overmedicated" for subconscious issues. The ongoing epidemic of prescription painkiller abuse. Early in 2013, a federal regulation report found that abuse of prescription painkillers such as OxyContin and Vicodin now trails only marijuana use as a form of upper abuse, and 22 million Americans have abused a prescription painkiller since 2002. Reacting to the crisis, the FDA in October announced tighter restrictions on Vicodin and painkillers as though it. Pro football and guv injuries. The 2012 suicide of retired National Football League personage linebacker Junior Seau, followed by the 2013 death of former Michigan college quarterback Cullen Finnerty - both of whom had suffered concussion-linked leader damage - helped spark a governmental debate on the dangers of head injury in amateur and professional sports. By year's end, the NFL announced that it was partnering with the US National Institutes of Health on a grave study into the long-term things of repeat head injuries and better concussion diagnosis. CDC anti-smoking campaign beat expectations. Perhaps one of the most egregious health stories of the year was the success of the CDC's hard-hitting "Tips From Former Smokers" ad campaign. The ads often focused on the difficulties in breathing or managing prosaic tasks faced by males and females ravaged by smoking-induced disease. CDC officials said the run spurred a 75 percent jump in calls to a stop-smoking hotline and a 38-fold upgrade in visits to the campaign's website. A new focus on "friendly" tummy bugs. A thousand of high-profile studies were published in 2013 highlighting the role of "helpful" microbes living in the trillions in the understanding digestive tract. New research is suggesting that the human-microbe relationship may have a big impact on conditions ranging from infant colic to obesity going here. Successful "fecal transplants" were also described, which consider patients sickened by perilous gut bugs to import disease-fighting microbial communities from healthy donors.

[theculturedmarxist]

One month before the presidential election of 2008, the giant Wall Street bank Citigroup submitted to the Obama campaign a list of its preferred candidates for cabinet positions in an Obama administration. This list corresponds almost exactly to the eventual composition of Barack Obama’s cabinet.

The memorandum, revealed by WikiLeaks in a recent document release from the email account of John Podesta, who currently serves as Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, was written by Michael Froman, who was then an executive with Citigroup and currently serves as US trade representative. The email is dated Oct. 6, 2008 and bears the subject line “Lists.” It went to Podesta a month before he was named chairman of President-Elect Obama’s transition team.

The email was sent at the height of the financial meltdown that erupted after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on September 15. Even as Citigroup and its Wall Street counterparts were dragging the US and world economy into its deepest crisis since the 1930s, they remained, as the email shows, the real power behind the façade of American democracy and its electoral process.

Froman’s list proved remarkably prescient. As it proposed, Robert Gates, a Bush holdover, became secretary of Defense; Eric Holder became attorney general; Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security; Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff; Susan Rice, United Nations ambassador; Arne Duncan, secretary of Education; Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services; Peter Orszag, head of the Office of Management and Budget; Eric Shinseki, secretary of Veterans Affairs; and Melody Barnes, chief of the Domestic Policy Council.

For the highly sensitive position of secretary of the Treasury, three possibilities were presented: Robert Rubin and Rubin’s close disciples Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner. Obama chose Geithner, then president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Geithner, along with Bush Treasury Secretary (and former Goldman Sachs CEO) Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, had played the leading role in organizing the Wall Street bailout.

Rubin had served as Treasury secretary in the Bill Clinton administration from 1995 until 1999, when he was succeeded by Summers. In that capacity, Rubin and Summers oversaw the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act (1933), which had imposed a legal wall separating commercial banking from investment banking. Immediately after leaving Treasury, Rubin became a top executive at Citigroup, remaining there until 2009.

A notable aspect of the Froman memo is its use of identity politics. Among the Citigroup executive’s lists of proposed hires to Podesta were a “Diversity List” including “African American, Latino and Asian American candidates, broken down by Cabinet/Deputy and Under/Assistant/Deputy Assistant level,” in Froman’s words, and “a similar document on women.” Froman also took diversity into account for his White House cabinet list, “probability-weighting the likelihood of appointing a diverse candidate for each position.” This list concluded with a table breaking down the 31 assignments by race and gender.

Citigroup’s recommendations came just three days after then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the largest Wall Street banks. The single biggest beneficiary was Citigroup, which was given $45 billion in cash in the form of a government stock purchase, plus a $306 billion government guarantee to back up its worthless mortgage-related assets.

Then-presidential candidate Obama played a critical political role in shepherding the massively unpopular bank bailout through Congress. The September financial crash convinced decisive sections of the US corporate-financial elite that the Democratic candidate of “hope” and “change” would be better positioned to contain popular opposition to the bailout than his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

As president, Obama not only funneled trillions of dollars to the banks, he saw to it that not a single leading Wall Street executive faced prosecution for the orgy of speculation and swindling that led to the financial collapse and Great Recession, and he personally intervened to block legislation capping executive pay at bailed-out firms.

The same furtive and corrupt process is underway in relation to a Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump administration. Froman’s email is one of many thousands released by WikiLeaks from the account of Podesta. Those communications, such as the Froman email, which expose who really rules America, have been virtually ignored by the media. The pro-Democratic Party New Republic called attention to it in an article published Friday, but the story has received little if any further coverage.

The media has instead focused on salacious details of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s sexual activities, designed, in part, to divert attention from the substance of the Clinton campaign-related emails being released by WikiLeaks and other sources.

The New Republic drew attention to the Froman memo not because it opposes such machinations, but as a warning to the interests it represents that they must move now to influence the eventual composition of a Hillary Clinton administration.

“If the 2008 Podesta emails are any indication, the next four years of public policy are being hashed out right now, behind closed doors,” wrote New Republic author David Dayen. “And if liberals want to have an impact on that process, waiting until after the election will be too late.”

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

After a quiet July, the primary calendar roars back to life in August. Here at FiveThirtyEight, that means putting our trusty primary-preview-writing pen to paper (did you miss us?) and cranking up the ol’ live blog (join us Tuesday night as we digest some results). We’ve got four states coming at you this week:

Missouri

Races to watch: Proposition A Polls close: 8 p.m. Eastern

The primary is a formality in the one Missouri campaign that everyone’s following this year: the U.S. Senate race. Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill will almost certainly face (spoiler alert!) Republican Josh Hawley, the state attorney general, in one of the marquee matchups of the 2018 Senate map. Nevertheless, Missouri will still play host to one of Tuesday’s most consequential elections: a ballot measure, Proposition A, that would allow non-union members who benefit from a collective-bargaining agreement to not pay union dues.

Missouri’s Republican-dominated legislature originally passed Senate Bill 19, commonly referred to as a “right-to-work” law, in 2017, but outraged labor unions turned to an already-energized liberal electorate and collected three times the number of signatures needed to subject the law to a voter referendum. After being dealt heavy blows in other Midwestern states and, recently, the U.S. Supreme Court, organized labor has gone all-in to defeat the right-to-work law in Missouri, raising $16.1 million and dwarfing the $4.3 million raised by supporters of Proposition A. (Since the vote is technically on whether to adopt Senate Bill 19, a “yes” vote is a vote for right-to-work rules.) So far, it looks like they’re succeeding: According to the most recent poll, the referendum is poised to fail 56 percent to 38 percent. The vote is being watched nationally and will be viewed as either a needed symbolic win or a devastating symbolic loss for the labor movement.

Kansas

Races to watch: 2nd and 3rd congressional districts; governor Polls close: 8 p.m. Eastern in most of the state, 9 p.m. Eastern in a few westerly counties

After Republican Rep. Lynn Jenkins announced her retirement from Kansas’s 2nd Congressional District and former state House Minority Leader Paul Davis said he would run for the Democrats, Republicans openly fretted that none of their seven candidates was strong enough to beat him, despite the district’s R+20 partisan lean1 — a measure of how much more Republican- or Democratic-leaning an area is than the country as a whole. Now, for better or for worse, they’ll pick one of those seven. Spending on behalf of Army veteran and former Iditarod musher Steve Watkins — half from his own campaign, half from a super PAC run by his father — has totaled more than all the other Republican candidates’ spending combined. Anyone else the GOP nominates — say, state Sen. Caryn Tyson, state Sen. Steve Fitzgerald or former state House Speaker Doug Mays — could struggle to play financially in Davis’s league (he’s raised $1.6 million).

The Democratic primary is anyone’s ballgame in the 3rd Congressional District, where Republican Rep. Kevin Yoder is defending an R+4 seat. Each wing of the party is represented. Bernie Sanders has endorsed former labor lawyer Brent Welder. Emily’s List is spending $400,000 to promote Native American activist Sharice Davids, who could probably beat you up. As a teacher at an elite private high school, Tom Niermann has the moderate cred to win over country-club Republicans in this well-educated district around Kansas City. That would normally suggest he’d give Democrats the best chance to win in November, but a poll sponsored by a progressive group also showed Welder doing well.

Sensing the chance for a pickup, Democrats have their first contested primary for Kansas governor since 1998. State Sen. Laura Kelly is the pick of the local political establishment, including former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, and it shows in her muscular fundraising. Former state Secretary of Agriculture Joshua Svaty’s campaign is almost like a modern-day incarnation of the Populist Party, the progressive agrarian political movement that won five states (including Kansas) in the 1892 presidential election. Svaty has devoted his campaign to winning back rural voters by combining liberal positions, like Medicaid expansion, with conservative ones, like opposition to abortion. The campaign has been defined by the Planned Parenthood-endorsed Kelly attacking Svaty for his pro-life record and Svaty attacking Kelly for her votes against gun restrictions and for voting restrictions. Former Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, a more mainstream liberal, has emerged mostly unscathed. He is running to be Kansas’s first black governor and could be a strong general-election candidate despite the state’s R+23 partisan lean.

Elevated to the office early this year after the resignation of Sam Brownback, Gov. Jeff Colyer is running for his first full term. But first he has to beat Secretary of State Kris Kobach in the Republican primary. Kobach is the rare down-ballot state executive to have a national profile, thanks to his divisive role on President Trump’s Commission on Election Integrity and zealous efforts to prosecute voter fraud (despite scant evidence that it exists in any abundance). That’s left him with a higher profile than Colyer but also higher unfavorable ratings among Republicans.

Embarrassing headlines have beset Kobach throughout the campaign: In April, he was held in contempt for disobeying a court order. In June, a court overturned his main policy priority, a law requiring that Kansans provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote, as unconstitutional. Just last week, ProPublica reported on how Kobach — doing his best Lyle Lanley impression — convinced several small towns to pass strict anti-immigration ordinances, then personally profited from defending them in court, with little success. There’s little question that Kobach is Republicans’ weakest play in the general election: A mid-July poll showed Colyer leading Kelly by 10 points, but Kobach trailing the Democrat by 1.

Michigan

Races to watch: U.S. Senate; 1st, 6th, 9th, 11th and 13th congressional districts; governor Polls close: 8 p.m. Eastern in most of the state, 9 p.m. Eastern in four counties on the Upper Peninsula

The Republican primary for Michigan governor is a question of who is more in touch with the modern GOP: Trump or outgoing Gov. Rick Snyder. So far, Trump is winning handily. The president endorsed state Attorney General Bill Schuette last September, and Schuette has led in primary polls throughout the race. The latest average has him 16 points ahead of Lt. Gov. Brian Calley. Schuette has kept his opponent down by reminding primary voters that Calley renounced his support for Trump after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape in 2016 — an episode that likely played a role in Trump’s decision to endorse Calley’s opponent.

Meanwhile, Calley’s loyalty to Snyder (who has endorsed him) may hurt more than it helps, given the governor’s -15 net approval rating. Schuette has even prosecuted members of the Snyder administration for their actions related to the Flint water crisis, while Calley has been the face of the administration’s defense. Even the specter of an FBI investigation into Schuette’s use of state resources doesn’t seem to have done much to change the trajectory of the race.

For Democrats, former state Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer has led most recent polls by 20 points or more, but there are a few warning signs for her campaign. The highest-quality poll2 of the race showed a much closer contest and came as her closest rival, Shri Thanedar, reported pouring $10 million of his own money into the race. Thanedar is campaigning as the progressive antidote to Whitmer’s establishment persona, but his business record and level of commitment to his positions (he reportedly considered running as a Republican) have been called into question. Perhaps to blunt Thanedar’s momentum, Sanders recently announced his support for former Detroit health director Abdul El-Sayed, and Sanders and fellow progressive hero Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist who recently won the Democratic nomination for a New York congressional seat, have committed to an aggressive campaign schedule on El-Sayed’s behalf. Whitmer is likely Democrats’ strongest general-election candidate for this slightly Republican-leaning (R+0.3) state: She is the only one who comfortably defeats Schuette in polling, and Republicans have covertly attacked her from the left in an effort to defeat her in the primary.

The open 11th Congressional District (R+7) is an electoral trifecta: a competitive Democratic primary, a competitive Republican primary and a toss-up race in November. An EPIC-MRA poll suggests that the Democratic front-runners are Tim Greimel, a state representative; Haley Stevens, who played a starring role in the Obama administration’s efforts to save General Motors and Chrysler; and Suneel Gupta, who is running on his unusual background as the co-founder of a health startup (with his brother Sanjay — maybe you’ve heard of him). For Republicans, Lena Epstein, the co-chair of the Trump campaign in Michigan, has parlayed a $1 million personal investment into front-runner status. A trio of current and former state legislators — former state Rep. A. Rocky Raczkowski, state Rep. Klint Kesto and state Sen. Mike Kowall — are her closest competition. Former Congressman Kerry Bentivolio — a reindeer farmer who plays Santa Claus on the side — is also attempting a comeback, but it’s not expected to go anywhere.

For U.S. Senate, 37-year-old military veteran John James looks like the likely Republican nominee over 61-year-old financier Sandy Pensler. The two were locked in a tight race when Trump endorsed James on July 27. Neither candidate is favored to beat longtime Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow in November, but the primary will be another data point in the debate over the value of Trump’s endorsement. Likewise, GOP Rep. Fred Upton will be tough to dislodge from Michigan’s 6th Congressional District (R+9), but Democrats will try to choose the best person for the job. Top Michigan Democrats are behind former Kellogg lobbyist George Franklin, but he has come under fire for demeaning descriptions of women in his memoir. Physician Matt Longjohn has raised almost as much money as Franklin and could swing the upset. And keep an eye on the 1st District (R+21): Republican Rep. Jack Bergman has a chance to run unopposed in November, but that all depends on whether Matt Morgan gets enough write-in votes in the Democratic primary. Morgan, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel, was impressing observers with his strong fundraising before getting booted from the ballot in June over a paperwork mistake on his nominating petitions.

Finally, Democratic primaries in solidly blue districts will decide the likely next member of Congress in two open seats. In the 9th District (D+7), Andy Levin, benefitting from plenty of establishment and union backing, probably thought he would have no trouble winning a seat that his father and uncle have held for the last 40 years. But then Emily’s List backed former state Rep. Ellen Lipton, who has outraised the dynastic favorite $1.1 million to $900,000. Both candidates support Medicare for all and agree on many other progressive priorities, so this one may hinge on the Levin family name vs. the “Year of the Woman.” A poll in late July gave Levin a 23-point lead. In the 13th District (D+61), polls suggest it’s a three-person race. Detroit City Council President Brenda Jones is organized labor’s candidate and is doing especially well with African-American voters. Former state Rep. Rashida Tlaib, seeking to become the first Muslim woman in Congress, has harnessed the progressive grassroots movement to the tune of over $1 million in donations. And if the Detroit vote winds up split between these candidates, that could throw victory to Bill Wild, the white mayor of suburban Westland who is the race’s only candidate from outside the city.

Washington

Races to watch: 3rd, 5th and 8th congressional districts Ballots due: 11 p.m. Eastern

Primaries in Washington state are important to watch for two reasons: to see who’s on the November ballot, sure, but also as a dry run for the state’s vote in November. Like California, Washington uses a top-two primary, meaning that all candidates — Democrats, Republicans and independents — run on the same ballot on Tuesday, with only the top two finishers advancing to the general election. Historically, the combined total vote share of all the Democratic candidates vs. that of all the Republican candidates has closely matched the eventual two-party margin in November.

Pay special attention to the margins in the 3rd District and the 5th District. In the latter, Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Democrat Lisa Brown are almost assured to advance to the general election, but analysts disagree on whether McMorris Rodgers — the No. 4 Republican in the House — is in any serious danger of losing this R+15 seat. Same with the 3rd District (R+9), which is either “Safe Republican” or “Likely Republican” depending on whom you ask. Voters in the 3rd will also choose which Democrat they want to face GOP Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler. The likeliest options, based on fundraising prowess, are self-described pragmatist Carolyn Long or self-funding progressive David McDevitt.

Everyone, though, agrees that the open 8th District (D+0.1) is a toss-up. State Sen. Dino Rossi has one of the top two spots all but locked up for the GOP, leaving three well-funded Democrats to battle for the second. An internal poll by the Democrat-affiliated House Majority PAC suggested that, of the three, former prosecutor Jason Rittereiser appeals the most to independents. That’s a bit odd (or not), because Rittereiser is in favor of single-payer health care and turned heads with an ad accusing Trump of treason. However, opponents Shannon Hader and Kim Schrier, both women and doctors, are arguing that Congress doesn’t need another male attorney in its ranks. Schrier enjoys the backing of Emily’s List and is thought to be the front-runner.

Results will start to be released shortly after 11 p.m. Eastern, but don’t stay up too late waiting for them all to be counted — Washington votes by mail, and ballots can be postmarked as late as Election Day, meaning results won’t be final for days.

[opedguy]

Omicron Variant Now Dominant in U.S.

LOS ANGLES (OnlineColumnist.com), Jan. 11, 2022.--President Joe Biden, 79, finds himself losing credibility over his management of the Covd-19 crisis, repeating the same statements about a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” a cliché emphasizing the importance of vaccines.  But since the Omicron variant showed resistance to existing vaccines, including those boosted with at least three mRNA doses, it’s clear that breakthrough infections are occurring a record numbers, proving, that the current Covid-19 crisis is not only about the unvaccinated. Reports of the Omicron variant also having more mild symptoms have not been proved accurate with bouts of hospitalizations and Covid pneumonia at record rates.  Hospital beds and ICU units are approaching record highs, despite the millions of American already fully vaccinated.  Confusion from the CDA about quarantine guidance for Omicron-infected patients also hasn’t helped the public.  

           Biden spent the 2020 campaign ridiculing former President Donald Trump who started the Covid-19 crisis from scratch, having no guidance from medial authorities about sufficient ways to manage a runaway global pandemic now causing over 863,488 U.S. deaths, compared to 5,520,194 worldwide, staggering number of deaths from the outset of the crisis in early 2020.  Biden and the Democrat Party used the Covid-19 global pandemic to discredit Trump, not realizing that they eventually discredit themselves, attesting to Biden 42.2% aggregate approval ratings. Despite have almost 100% media support, Biden’s approval ratings plummeted because of his Covid-19 response, but, more importantly, his failures on the economy and foreign policy where his policies have brought the country to near war with Russia and China, the worst relations in modern history.   

                    Omicron’s rapid spread now accounting for 93% of U.S. cases of Covid-19 presents problems for health authorities, uncertain how to stem the rapid rise in cases.  Biden’s comments that it’s a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” has not proven correct because current vaccine protocols does not stop Omicron from breakthrough infections related to the fact that current mRNA and adenovirus vaccines don’t provide protection.  “I do think it’s about competence and capabability and telling the truth and using all of the tools that are at the president’s disposal,” said former Health Human Services Secretary under the Obama administration, Kathleen Sebelius.  Sebelius admitted that Biden spent most of his campaign running down former President Donald Trump’s Covid-19 response but now finds himself caught in the sticky wicket, getting no better response with the Delta and now Omicron variants.   

          Biden has told the public they won’t get severely sick if they’re fully vaccinated. But Omicron has proven that plenty of fully vaccinated people are getting severe illness, requiring hospitalization or effective therapeutics, not widely available to most people.  Schools and businesses continue to remain open despite alarming rates of infections of students, school personnel and businesses.  Hospital personnel, airline staff, first responders, including police and fire, have seen dramatic numbers of people unable to work.  With a nationwide shortage of home test kits, it’s made managing the nationwide crisis more complicated, leaving many citizens overwhelmed.  There’s no indication that at home test kits will be plentiful anytime soon, leaving the White House look incompetent in managing the Covid-19 crisis.  

            When CDC Chairman Rochelle Walensky shorted the quarantine guidance to five days from 10 Dec. 27, 2021, she threw the public for a loop.  She offered no scientific guidance only that the public could tolerate it better. “In terms of the communication and the trust in the CDC, it feels like we’ve have gone backwards,” said Lean Wen, former Baltimore health commissioner.  “There’s agreement that the messaging has to be better and that it would be important to be simpler for people and more targeted toward what’s people nee and action guided,” said Ezekiel Emmanuel, part of Biden’s transition medial team. “I think we just need a clear message so people what the ‘to do’ is,” said Emmanuel said.  “There has to be an admission at the federal level [about] what is not going well and frankly, we have a testing mess,” said Sebelius, seeing the White House losing credibility.   

          White House Press Secretary Jens Psaki has made matters worse for the White House painting only a rosy picture when most citizens know differently.  “”Now we’re in a different place that were a years ago,” said Psaki.  “We have a range of tools at our disposal, including antivirals and other treatments.  So we’re going to continue to expand that , but we are in a different place than we were a years ago,” Psak said, saying nothing about the inadequate supplies of home testing kits, something inexcusable given the advance nature of the pandemic.  Psaki tries to compensate for what are obvious Biden inadequacies when it comes to explaining the Covid-19 crisis.  With so many fully vaccinated people getting infected with Omicron, it makes his look ignorant talking about a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”  Today’s vaccines don’t stop Omicron infection, despite possibly lessening the severity of infections.

 About the Author 

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. 

[bidaubadeadieu]

I find this image really hard to read, but the message is important, so for accessibility, I’ve excerpted this and some other relevant sections from the 2010 (updated 2012) opinion piece:

“I had diagnosed "abdominal pain" when the real problem was hunger; I confused social issues with medical problems in other patients, too. I mislabeled the hopelessness of long-term unemployment as depression and the poverty that causes patients to miss pills or appointments as noncompliance. In one older patient, I mistook the inability to read for dementia. My medical training had not prepared me for this ambush of social circumstance.”

“Real-life obstacles had an enormous impact on my patient's lives, but because I had neither the skills nor the resources for treating them, I ignored the social context of disease altogether. And so, despite being a physician, I was surprised when, in June, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius announced that $250 million originally designated for dealing with the social issues that cause problems like Jeremy's would instead be used to train more primary-care doctors....  Because the Obama administration is not likely to find more money in the midst of the recession, we need to train these new doctors to deal with the problems we seen in the clinic. There are several important reasons that this new workforce - and the old one - should increase its skills to tackle the social factors that affect health.... There's a strong argument that these millions directed toward the health care workforce would be better spent on community programs that directly address the avoidable social factors that either make people sick or sicker than they could be.”

https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Funding-healthy-society-helps-cure-health-care-3177542.php