Legislation Should Not Be A Team Sport--It Should Be What Is Best For The Country--Legally!

Commentary: Born-Alive bill failure shows the deadly consequences of 'team sports' politics

We can't keep putting party affiliation over morality and common sense

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

 AARON COLEN

A bill that would've protected the lives of babies who survived abortions failed to pass the Senate on Monday, and to my knowledge, not one of the 44 senators who voted against it made an argument that had anything to do with the actual legislation.

The Democrats who took to the Senate floor to oppose Sen. Ben Sasse's (R-Neb.) Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act had either not read the bill or read it and decided they had to lie about it in order to justify their votes.
Before we go any further, let's take just a few minutes to do what far too few lawmakers and voters did: READ THE BILL. It's not very long.
If you read, you'll notice the bill did not:

• Say anything about whether abortion is right or wrong
• Say anything about whether abortion should be legal
• Say anything about how late into a pregnancy a woman should be able to get an abortion

The bill did quite the opposite. Its very premise carried the assumption of a woman's access to legal abortion, and attempted to address what to do if for some reason that legal abortion results in the child being born alive.

All it would have required is that the abortion provider (1) not try to kill the baby that had just been born, and (2) get that baby to a hospital to receive medical care. It even makes it clear that the mother is not to be punished, regardless of how the abortion plays out.
And, as a reminder, we are only even having this discussion because states are trying to allow for abortions later and later into pregnancy, increasing the likelihood that a botched abortion could result in a viable fetus being born and needing immediate care to survive.
So, to be clear, opponents to this bill are saying that the medical practitioner performing the abortion should be allowed to finish the job of killing the baby even if it is somehow born alive, either by an active method or by passively allowing it to die from lack of medical treatment.
As much as I wish it was, this is not hyperbole. It's clear within the language of the bill.
The problem is, none of the bill's opponents were willing to discuss the bill for what it was. Instead, they hid behind generic and unrelated talking points about women's right to healthcare and government interference into a woman's choice. None of that is in the bill.

That elected officials were willing to go along with this charade and kill a reasonable and useful bill based on verifiably false arguments shows how far the "team sports" mentality of our politics has gone out of control.
A Republican senator authored a bill loosely related to abortion. The Democratic "team" stance is to oppose anything a Republican says about abortion.
So, the reflexive response from all but three Democratic senators was to take a stance first, then build the justification for that stance after the fact.
That's why the arguments against the Born-Alive bill don't make any sense. Because Democratic opponents quickly realized that there was no way to oppose the actual text of that bill without appearing to advocate for an abortion provider's right to kill a baby or let it die after it is born. So they changed the subject.
Democratic constituents ate it up. Because, as I mentioned before, most people won't read the actual text of any bill, when they see one of the lawmakers on their "team" saying something, and it doesn't violate their worldview, they'll just take it at face value.
And that's the story of how a bill that only sought to give the legal right to survival to babies that survive abortions got voted down as an attack on women's healthcare.
Most citizens will never sit down and read bills. They trust the lawmakers they elect to represent them to do that for them. When those lawmakers decide to so drastically mislead the people in the name of team-sports politics, with life and death literally in the balance, we see our nation crossing lines that we never could have imagined.

This Is What They Do With Our Money

5 Dems Outed Taking Taxpayer Dollars For Concert

Conservative radio host, Brian Pierce is sounding the alarm after uncovering that FIVE Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus have squandered taxpayer money for personal fun.

Through his Twitter handle Duane T. Swamp, Pierce exposed how U.S. Reps. Gregory Meeks, Barbara Lee, Bobby Rush, Terri Sewell and Hank Johnson spent $60,000 of taxpayer funds.

The group used the money to take a 3-day trip to South Africa for the Global Citizen Festival. However the group went all out as VIP pass guests of Beyonce.

Despite spending thousands of taxpayer dollars on a party vacation, there has been little outcry before Pierce brought attention to the matter.

Who Is She? Is She Real Or Something Else?

AOC a Virtual Ghost to Neighbors, Constituents

• 2019-02-26 
• Source: AAN 
• by: AAN Staff

2 2 0  5

image: https://aanews-structure-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/client_assets/aanews/media/picture/5c6b/0439/6970/2d16/2907/2e00/Slideshow_480px-Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez_Official_Portrait.jpg?1550697729

US House of Representatives [Public domain]

Report Advertisement

America's most famous and controversial congresswoman, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a virtual ghost in the neighborhood she allegedly calls home in the district she now represents.

Ocasio-Cortez has no district office and no local phone number – unlike New York's three other freshman members of Congress.

Even more bizarre, it's unclear after talking to building tenants and local business owners if the 29-year-old politician still lives in the Bronx neighborhood irrevocably tied to her working class image.

The New York Post reports:

Ocasio-Cortez has used her deceased father’s Bronx condo on her voter registration since 2012, and even posed in the one-bedroom Bronx flat for celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz in a Vogue magazine profile after her stunning November election. But The Post could find little indication she continues to live there.

...

Her apartment’s next-door neighbor said she had never seen Ocasio-Cortez. Another neighbor, who has lived down the hall from the congresswoman’s apartment for the last 40 years, said he’d never seen her or her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, who has claimed the address as his own since last spring.

Meanwhile, in Washington, the newly-minted representative rents a luxury apartment near Capitol Hill, at a property where studios start at $1,840 a month. There are no affordable units for low-income residents, despite city ordinances that require them.

In the eight months since Ocasio-Cortez’s dramatic defeat of the long-serving Crowley in June’s Democratic primary — a victory that all but guaranteed a general election win in the heavily Democratic District 14 — the congresswoman has failed to open a local office.

...

In the absence of a district office, and with no way to contact the rookie congresswoman, voters have resorted to desperate measures.

Constituents actually stop by Ocasio-Cortez' Parkchester apartment building to leave notes for their representative. The postal worker at the building interviewed by the Post didn't mince words, calling it "a waste of time."

Read more at http://americanactionnews.com/articles/aoc-a-virtual-ghost-to-neighbors-constituents#OHMk3yLT4bM5YXDi.99

Another Lying Democrat/Socialist Who Doesn't Live Where They Claim?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez caught lying about her residence!?

FEBRUARY 25, 2019

• LINKEDIN
• TWITTER

It seems that the Democrats’ most famous freshman is somehow nowhere to be found.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., made a few stops in her alleged home neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York over the weekend — and they were just stops.

When she returned home, however, it was not to the Parkchester building that’s listed on her voter registration. In fact, her neighbors insist that Ocasio-Cortex hasn’t been living there.

It turns out Ocasio-Cortez may not be who New York voters thought she is.

The New York Post reports that the residence Ocasio-Cortez claimed as her residence was owned by her father, Sergio Cortez, who is now deceased.

Ocasio-Cortez’ spokesperson, Corbin Trent, claimed that the apartment is, and was always her home.

“She lives in the same neighborhood she’s lived in for years,” he said.

But for the self-proclaimed “girl from Brooklyn,” the dots just aren’t connecting.

The truth is that no one in Parkchester remembers seeing her around. Ever. From neighbors to local businesses, Ocasio-Cortez has been as transparent as a ghost.

The Post reports that her neighbors — one of which has been living down the hall from Ocasio-Cortez alleged apartment for 40 years — don’t remember ever seeing her.

Workers at the neighborhood pizza shop, grocery store and taqueria all claimed she never been seen there… outside of a few publicity grabs. People say she shows up with a bunch of cameras, makes a speech about being from the neighborhood, and then seems to vanish.

Even the postal worker claimed that he was used to seeing the mail pile up at the residence, and that he barely ever saw Ocasio-Cortez.

“Just because their names are on the box doesn’t mean they live there,” he said.

When The Post tried to reach Ocasio-Cortez to answer their questions about her residency, she reportedly sent journalists on a fool’s errand… and disappeared out a backdoor.

Is Ocasio-Cortez lying to the people who voted for her. Without even a public office to speak of, many questions surround the New York congresswoman, in particular–now that she’s ascended to fame, is she practicing what she preaches to her people: Socialism and sharing the wealth?

She is, after all, staying in a super luxury apartment in the exclusive Navy Yard neighborhood of Washington D.C. when she’s in the city… an apartment that allows no low income residents.

This is the same person who criticized her opponent in the 2018 midterms for being too close to Washington D.C. to create effective policy for New Yorkers in their district!

Oh, how things change once politicians move into the swamp.

—The Horn editorial team

AOC--Just Another Fraud

AOC living in luxury DC apartment: No poor people allowed

 

Alana Goodman

 

5 days ago

Workers thought they rescued a dog from a river. It was a wolf.

 

Trump Org calls on House Judiciary panel to stop investigating company

 

© Provided by MediaDC: Washington Newspaper Publishing Company, Inc.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., recently moved into a luxury apartment complex in Washington, D.C. that does not offer the affordable housing units that were a key plank in the New York congresswoman’s campaign platform.

Ocasio-Cortez, 29, who said in November that she was concerned about being able to afford rent in D.C., now earns a $174,000 annual salary and is living in a newly built high-rise in the city’s Navy Yard area, it was reported last week.

The freshman congresswoman, a self-described socialist, campaigned on a platform to expand affordable housing, and her controversial Green New Deal proposal promises “Safe, affordable, adequate housing” for all.

But Ocasio-Cortez’s new building — built by leading D.C. developer WC Smith — is part of a luxury complex whose owners specifically do not offer affordable units under Washington, D.C.’s Affordable Dwelling Units program. The Washington Examiner is not naming the building or complex.

In 2018, a civil rights attorney sued the Washington, D.C. government for allegedly discriminatory gentrification policies, claiming that development in Navy Yard area and other parts of southeast D.C. encouraged an influx of affluent “millennial creatives” who displaced minority residents.

Ocasio-Cortez, commonly referred to as "AOC," repeatedly criticized luxury real estate developers during her campaign, claiming that their buildings hiked up rent prices and pushed low-income residents out of their neighborhoods.

“We need to kick luxury real estate lobbyists to the curb and defend working people’s way of life,” Ocasio-Cortez said last March. “Skyrocketing cost of living is a national crisis that CAN be addressed. It’s not just an NYC issue - it’s happening in every US metro area.”

Ocasio-Cortez also promised not to take campaign contributions from luxury developers during her campaign. “It’s time we stand up to the luxury developer lobby,” she said in a speech last April. “Every official is too scared to do it - except me.”

Her new apartment complex — which boasts on its website that it “promises to take luxury apartment living to a new level” — offers over 100,000 square feet of amenities for its residents.

These include: two private massage rooms with state-of-the-art hydrotherapy beds; men’s and women’s saunas; a full-scale demonstration kitchen with wood-fired pizza oven; a 25-meter indoor lap pool; a rooftop infinity pool with panoramic views of the Capitol; a Peloton cycling studio with over a dozen bikes; and a fireside lounge featuring a Steinway & Sons player piano.

Also included is a PGA-grade golf simulation lounge with a wrap-around screen and viewing bar that allows residents to play virtually at dozens of the world’s most exclusive golf courses with the touch of a button. Last week, Democrats mocked President Trump for installing a new golf simulator at the White House — updating with his own money one originally installed by former President Barack Obama.

Apartments in the building currently start at $1,840 per month for a 440 square foot studio, and range up to $5,200 for a three-bedroom. The average rent in Washington D.C. is $1,340 for a one-bedroom apartment and $1,550 for a two-bedroom, according to the most recent data from Apartment List.

W. Christopher Smith, 66, the Annapolis-based CEO of WC Smith, is a Democratic donor who contributed to Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and the Senate campaigns of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-M.D., Sen. Mark Warner, D-VA., and Jane Raybould, who lost a 2018 Senate race in Nebraska.

Smith donated to Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., in 2017, and 11 employees of WC Smith gave $6,900 to the campaign of Muriel Bower, the Democratic mayor of D.C. In 2018, WC Smith's vice-president of communications Ann-Marie Bairstow gave over $1300 to Act Blue earmarked in small amounts — $100 or less — for various candidates, including $50 to Ocasio-Cortez.

CBO Is Not Perfect--Far From It!

9 Years After Obamacare Passed, Agency Finds Numbers Were Wildly Off

Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / February 22, 2019 / 89 Comments

A computer screen shows the enrollment page for the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Staff/Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

Jarrett Stepman@JarrettStepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of "The Right Side of History" podcast.Send an email to Jarrett.

Democrats defeated Republicans in the Obamacare repeal fight by warning that 22 million Americans would be thrown off their health insurance. They pointed to data leaked from the Congressional Budget Office.

Well, it turns out that data was completely wrong.

According to a report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office wildly overestimated the number of people who would lose their health insurance with the repeal of the individual mandate penalty.

Initial estimates from the Congressional Budget Office said 14 million would drop off their health insurance coverage due to the elimination of the individual mandate. Then, during the height of the 2017 debate over repeal, progressives touted a leaked number from the Congressional Budget Office claiming that 22 million people would “lose” their insurance if Congress repealed the law.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

However, as health care analyst Avik Roy pointed out, what made this number so high was the inflated number of people expected to lose their insurance due to repeal of the mandate—about 73 percent to be exact. So, it wouldn’t be 22 million Americans losing their insurance. Most of those in the projection would simply be choosing to opt out of insurance.

And it turns out even that wasn’t true. A far smaller number of Americans appear to be opting out of insurance since the individual mandate’s repeal. Only 2.5 million more people are expected to go without insurance in 2019 due to its repeal, according to the latest report, and that number is expected to decline in the years ahead.

The Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein called the Congressional Budget Office “scandalously off in its estimates.” That’s about right, considering all that was riding on its numbers.

As Klein noted, the Congressional Budget Office estimates were a large part of why the individual mandate was adopted in the first place, and a big reason why its repeal didn’t pass. So it’s a wonder why the media isn’t picking this up.

“Given the outsized influence that the CBO has on policymaking in Washington, the CBO’s misfire on the individual mandate should be a major story,” Klein wrote.

The Congressional Budget Office is opaque, to say the least. It does not publish or share the way it comes up with numbers, and some have criticized the organization for its lack of transparency and outsized influence on policymaking.

Doug Badger, a visiting fellow in domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that Congressional Budget Office analysis has been a chronic problem.

“When it comes to the individual mandate, CBO has never let the facts affect their wildly inaccurate estimates. CBO continued to forecast that millions of insured Americans would suddenly become uninsured if the mandate were repealed,” Badger wrote in an email to The Daily Signal. “CBO’s faulty estimates misled the public into believing that repealing Obamacare would lead to a vast increase in the number of uninsured. Bad estimates produced bad policy.”

Many conservatives are fed up with the deference shown to the agency, given it’s poor track record and track of transparency. Reps. Mark Walker, R-N.C., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, suggested in 2017 that it’s time to stop “blindly” following the agency’s predictions.

“The value of having outside experts review legislation cannot be understated,” they wrote for the Washington Examiner. “But continuing to hinge congressional actions on the projections of an agency that has proven to be so consistently wrong does a disservice to not only members trying to represent their constituents, it primarily does a disservice to the public.”

I wrote in 2017 that perhaps we should be more skeptical toward the findings of independent agencies like the Congressional Budget Office. It seems those doubts were valid. 

Unfortunately, the damage is already done. These faulty numbers have had their decisive effect on policy debates, and we are living with the consequences.

We can expect nothing more until we all begin to take such “expert” predictions with a little less certainty.