Dr. Inslee Will See You Now

On a more local, but potentially national issue rearing its ugly head... AGAIN! This missive is from the folks at ShiftWA.org, who watch and report daily on important issues affect us "working stiffs" and retirees and who pay their taxes, while getting shafted by the elites in Olympia who apparently believe we work for them in the Democratic Party.

= = = = = = = = 



Friends,

We know with all the fanfare around the start of the 2019 session, it can be easy to miss key policy proposals coming out of the Legislature or the Governor’s mansion. Well, let us tell you about a doozy. [It's Deja Vu all over again, folks! Emphasis mine.]

Governor Inslee set aside any inhibitions about being labeled an extremist and announced his intention to push policy this session that will lead our state down the path to socialized medicine. Inslee’s proposed public health care option is nothing more than a massive government-takeover of health care.


Add your name here to say NO to government-run health care

[ADD YOUR NAME HERE]

We could call it “Insleecare” but all Inslee cares about is his presidential ambitions. He definitely doesn’t care about the quality of your health care or the immense burden his plan would place on taxpayers. We know what he does care deeply about. The caucus goers in the states of Iowa and Nevada.

He wasn’t even able to provide an idea of how much this enormous government program would cost. We’d say this entire thing is a joke, but radical Seattle leftists were elected in November and they’re taking government health care plan seriously.

In Inslee’s nanny state, government knows best and will decide which plan is best for you. Eventually, only one government-approved and taxpayer-funded health insurance plan will be available. But don’t worry, Dr. Inslee assures us his plan if fair.



Do you want Inslee involved in your health care decisions? Add your name to say NO to government-run health care.

Comparing White House Staffs and Salaries

Trump's Salary & Staff

On Friday, the Trump administration released their annual report to Congress on White House Office Personnel. It includes the name, status, salary and position title of all 377 White House employees. The report also said that Trump decided not to take a dime of his salary; instead he donated it to an amazing cause.

  

The report also showed that President Trump is far better at saving money.

The total annual White House salaries under Trump are $35.8 million vs. $60.9 million under Obama, a savings of $25.1 million.

Here are some other key findings:

There are 140 fewer employees on White House staff under Trump than under Obama at this point in their respective presidencies.

Thirty-nine fewer staffers are dedicated to The First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS). Currently, there are only five staffers dedicated to Melania Trump vs. forty-four staffers who served Michelle Obama (FY2009).

However, it's what the report said Trump did with this salary that has everyone talking.

Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries! [Did we hear anything about what Obama did with his salary? And they fawned over him for 8 years! This tells us a lot.]

 

AMAZING! It's so great to have a President who loves our brave military men and women so much!

Oh, and where's the media coverage of this?

That's right, they don't cover anything decent that the President does. [Their mantra is, "Only what hurts our enemy is covered... even if we have to make it up!"]

It should be pointed out here that, while this information is similar to previous reports which have been mixed with both truth and fiction, this one does not compare FLOTUS Obama to FLOTUS Clinton, but FLOTUS Obama to FLOTUS Trump. The only inaccuracy in this report is the amount of Pres, Trump's salary donated. Here's an alternate source to back up this report.

Kamala Harris: Seven Key Facts About Democrats’ Top 2020 Contender

The Democratic Party field of presidential contenders is already filling up quickly. Liberal/Socialists rarely lack hubris and ambition when it comes to seizing power; just consider Hillary's attempt in our last election.

As my sources provide information on these candidates, I will happily share them here.

= = = = = = = = = = = =

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) declared Monday that she will run for President of the United States.

She is already drawing comparisons to Barack Obama, who once praised her good looks. Like him, she is a left-wing first-term U.S. Senator with little experience and few accomplish-ments in office. Harris, who declared on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. day, also has a diverse background, and is the first woman of color to be a top presidential contender.

 

Here are seven other key facts about her:

1. Kamala Harris’s career received a boost from a patronage job in dubious circumstances. In 1994, then-outgoing Speaker of the California State Assembly Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) appointed Harris to a state board with a $72,000 salary. The Los Angeles Times reported: “Harris, a former deputy district attorney in Alameda County, was described by several people at the Capitol as Brown’s girlfriend.” (Brown was married but separated.)

2. Kamala Harris barely won her first race for California Attorney General in 2010. As in many of the 2018 congressional races in California, Harris won despite losing on Election Night: “Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley had declared victory on election night, only to see the race flip-flop between the two candidates in the coming days as counties around the state continued to tally mail-in and provisional ballots,” SFGate.com reported.

3. Kamala Harris was accused of using her state office to attack political enemies and reward friends. Harris was sued by conservative groups for forcing them to disclose donor information that the IRS allows them to keep confidential. She was also sued by a healthcare company that claimed she imposed undue restrictions when it tried to buy another company because she wanted to help her ally, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

4. Kamala Harris was criticized for financial mismanagement during her 2016 U.S. Senate campaign. In 2015, the Sacramento Bee reported that Harris’s campaign had a “spending problem,” and was “burning through campaign cash nearly as rapidly as she raises it.” She won the general election against Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) after sewing up the support of the Democratic establishment, including then-President Barack Obama.

5. Kamala Harris has been the star of viral video confrontations, but has done little else in Washington. In committee hearings in the Senate, she has a habit of badgering witnesses — then claiming, when stopped, that male, Republican Senators are trying to silence her, and raising money off the resulting outrage. She tripped herself up in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, falsely claiming that he wanted to take birth control away from women.

6. Kamala Harris faces new questions about a close aide who settled a $400,000 harassment lawsuit. Despite posturing as a champion for women, Harris claimed that she did not know about a major settlement when she was California Attorney General in which one of her “top deputies,” Larry Wallace, had been accused of “gender harassment.” Harris mentioned Wallace positively in her new book, which she is using to promote her candidacy.

7. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kamala Harris’s California colleague, prefers another candidate. Feinstein has made clear that her preferred candidate in 2020 would be former Vice President Joe Biden. Feinstein, though lately a target of conservative criticism for her role in the Kavanaugh hearing, is the more moderate of the two, taking pragmatic stances on issues like water and working across the aisle — an approach Harris largely rejects.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

In observance of this man's contribution to our nation, which unfortunately has been totally warped, or ignored, by the Democratic Party and liberal/socialists of today, I'm posting this message provided by My Faith Votes.com. There's a link at the end of this message which provides an actual audio recording of this address and is accompanied by a transcript of the entire speech.

For over 50 years we have set aside a day each January to remember Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., best known for his leadership in the civil rights movement. Less known is the fact that he was a pastor whose life was guided by the Word of God.

Here’s an excerpt from a sermon he delivered in 1954 to Ebenezer Baptist Church in Detroit Michigan. His words still ring true and are relevant for our culture today.

“There is something wrong with our world, something fundamentally and basically wrong. I don’t think we have to look too far to see that. I’m sure that most of you would agree with me in making that assertion. And when we stop to analyze the cause of our world’s ills, many things come to mind.

We begin to wonder if it is due to the fact that we don’t know enough. But it can’t be that. Because in terms of accumulated knowledge we know more today than men have known in any period of human history…”

He went on to provide the answer to man’s problems.

“I think we have to look much deeper than that if we are to find the real cause of man’s problems and the real cause of the world’s ills today. If we are to really find it I think we will have to look in the hearts and souls of men.

The trouble isn’t so much that we don’t know enough, but it’s as if we aren’t good enough. The trouble isn’t so much that our scientific genius lags behind, but our moral genius lags behind. The great problem facing modern man is that, that the means by which we live, have outdistanced the spiritual ends for which we live. So we find ourselves caught in a messed-up world. The problem is with man himself and man’s soul…

My friends, all I’m trying to say is that if we are to go forward today, we’ve got to go back and rediscover some mighty precious values that we’ve left behind. That’s the only way that we would be able to make of our world a better world, and to make of this world what God wants it to be and the real purpose and meaning of it. The only way we can do it is to go back, and rediscover some mighty precious values that we’ve left behind.”

What are those precious values Rev. King believed our nation had left behind?

1. “The first is this—the first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this—that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe, just as abiding as the physical laws…”

2. “Then there is a second thing, a second principle that we’ve got to go back and rediscover. And that is that all reality has spiritual control. In other words, we’ve got to go back and rediscover the principle that there is a God behind the process...”

As we remember Rev. King’s legacy today, I encourage you to take some time to listen to or read his sermon “Rediscovering Lost Values” in its entirety. You will be inspired to carry on the timeless biblical values that our nation is so prone to forget.

What It Takes To Become A Millionaire

Okay, it's time to explode one of the biggest myths that drive socialists, the misguided notion that those rich 1% don't deserve the riches they have. You know, these people.

What’s the difference between America’s millionaires and the rest of us? Chris Hogan, author of Everyday Millionaires, and his research team interviewed over 10,000 millionaires to find out, and what they discovered exploded a number of common myths.

This is the kind of information that too many public schools ignore, or refuse to teach, because too many teachers among the ranks of public schools are too busy focused on social justice agendas. 

That agenda only fosters an attitude of resentment and hate by those who buy into the "social justice" meme. To illustrate the difference, be sure to first watch the linked video above. Then, watch this video here below.

Obsession of the Anti-Trump Democratic Party

Although long, this excellent article by Prof. Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School, is well worth the time to read. (Thanks, Doug, for sharing this.)
= = = = = = = = = = = =

The Anti-Trump Party: How The Democratic Party Has Lost Its Defining Values In The Obsession With Trump

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the evolution of the Democratic Party under the Trump Administration.

Here is the column:
 

Washington has long been a stranger to principle other than the principle of self advancement. Yet, something new seems to be emerging across the country. Politicians have long felt the need to disguise raw political agendas in the pretense of principle. That pretense has disappeared.

 

In this age of rage, voters seem to have no patience, let alone need, for leaders speaking of abstract principles. They want immediate unequivocal action in supporting or opposing President Trump. For Democrats, that all consuming purpose has led to the abandonment of core unifying values, including many that first drew me to the Democratic Party. While they would vehemently deny it, Trump is remaking the party in his inverse image. This past month shows how far that transformation has gone.
 

The remaking of the Democratic Party was evident last week with the reaction to the decision to withdraw troops from Syria. There was a time when a sizable number of Democrats opposed undeclared wars and unending military campaigns. Now, they are appalled that Trump would not continue a war in one of the myriad countries with American troops engaged in combat operations. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the withdrawal a “Christmas gift to Vladimir Putin,” while Tim Kaine, David Cicilline, and other Democrats called it “irresponsible” or “hasty.”
 

Of course, this “hasty” move is after seven years of intervention in the civil war, including personnel on the ground since 2012. Our military also has been in Iraq since 2003 and in Afghanistan since 2001. One study estimated the costs of the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan at $5.6 trillion. More importantly, thousands of military personnel have been killed and tens of thousands have been wounded. Yet, Democrats now espouse the same lines denounced during the Bush administration.
 

Popular cable programs with Democratic and liberal viewers are equally full of recriminations over withdrawing from these wars. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow criticized the plan to withdraw troops as merely an effort to distract the public, despite Trump campaigning in 2016 on promises to withdraw from such wars. “Morning Joe” host and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough denounced the president as a “quivering coward” who failed to understand that we must fight “enemies like ISIS abroad, so we do not have to fight them in our own schools, churches and airports.” Liberals once rejected the premise that we should engage in continual wars in other countries or face terrorism on our streets at home.*
 

Democrats are now defined by Trump the way that antimatter is defined by matter, with each particle of matter corresponding to an antiparticle. Take the secrecy. Democrats once were the party that fought against the misuse of secret classification laws by the FBI and other agencies. They demanded greater transparency from the executive branch, which is a position that I have readily supported. Yet, when oversight committees sought documents related to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation of Trump associates, Democrats denounced the very thought that Republicans would question the judgment of the FBI that any such disclosures would be tantamount to jeopardizing national security.
 

Democratic Party leaders including Pelosi declared that the oversight committees had moved beyond “dangerous irresponsibility and disregard for our national security” and “disregarded the warnings of the Justice Department and the FBI.” Likewise, House Intelligence Committee ranking minority member Adam Schiff expressed shock that the FBI was not given deference in withholding the information in the surveillance investigation.
 

Yet, when the information was finally forced out of the FBI, including the disclosure of previously redacted material, it was clear that the FBI had engaged in overclassification to shield not national security but to shield the bureau itself from criticism. It included discussion of the roles of high ranking FBI officials and their reliance on such sources as the Christopher Steele dossier, which were already publicly known. Democratic House members like Schiff presumably knew what was in the redactions and, nevertheless, wanted deference to the classification decisions of the FBI.
 

In supporting the investigation of Trump, Democrats have embraced expanding definitions of crimes like obstruction, conspiracy, and the like. Historically, Democrats have resisted such efforts to stretch the criminal code to criminalize broader and broader areas of conduct. During the Trump administration, Democrats sound like legal hawks in demanding criminal charges for conduct long treated as civil matters, such as campaign finance violations and foreign agent registration violations.
 

In pursuing Trump, Democrats have also adopted a type of “red scare” mindset. While Republicans long pumped up the Russian menace as a political Cold War narrative, Democrats are now adopting the same type of rhetoric over the Russian attempt to interfere with the 2016 president election. 

Democrats for the past two years speak about how Russians “stole” the election or destroyed the legitimacy of the results, with little empirical data to support such irresponsible and unfounded claims.
 

While many of us support the Mueller investigation and the need for sanctions against Russia for its interference, Democrats now routinely refer to Russia as our “enemy” and accuse any people with alleged connections to Russians as “traitors.” Special counsel Robert Mueller may have more to reveal on Russian hacking, but there is little evidence that either the trolling operation or leaked emails of the Hillary Clinton campaign had a material impact on the 2016 presidential election.
 

In building up the Russian menace, Democrats ignore that we have not only hacked the emails of our enemies but of our allies as well for years. Moreover, we have routinely intervened in or influenced foreign elections. Likewise, other nations from Israel to Mexico to China and many more, have long tried to influence our elections. Still, Democrats are escalating their calls for greater action against Russia, including criticism of being too dovish in not confronting Russian military elements around the world.
 

A party requires more than hatred for an individual. A party has to stand for something that transcends the immediate or the visceral. Yet, in the age of Trump, the public is not interested in nuance or niceties. The watchword is “resist” and that means to push back at all costs, even against our core values. So the question is not what the Democratic Party will do but what it will be after Donald Trump eventually leaves office.

 

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at  George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

* Prof. Turley’s paragraph I’ve changed into italicized font in the above article reveals accurately just how irrational the Media (D) has become with Trump as president. I recall that 12 years ago, Glenn Beck was telling us that soon things would turn inside out and upside down. And it certainly has! The argument which Prof. Have we forgotten the multitude of terrorist incidences we’ve had over the last ten years? The Army base massacre in Texas, the Boston Marathon bombing, the night club in Florida… need I go on?

As I’ve long maintained in prior posts, these liberal/socialists early on were the ones defending, if not encouraging, Muslims coming into the country and claiming that they were not a threat to the security of our country. However, what they were not admitting to as part of their agenda was that they were looking long-term at taking over total control of the country through sheer numbers. If it is to take decades, then so be it. 

Haven’t they denied past “lone wolf” terrorist acts having connection with the Jihadis of Islam? Why? Because they know they need to assuage the fears and concerns of the general public about the multiple and repeated incidences. They know that if they’re patient long enough, they’d eventually have sufficient numbers to implement Sharia Law in a majority of urban centers across the land. They aren’t called “progressives” for nothing!

The Tax Burden of the Middle Class

The Heritage Foundation recently sent me the following information on taxes and the middle-class  regarding taxes in a mailing:

1. President Donald Trump and members of Congress campaigned and won in 2016 on a platform of lowering taxes for the American people.
2. The federal government continues to face massive deficits year after year, despite taking more and more of the taxpayer's money - and the national debt has surged to $21 trillion.
3. With debt and deficits mounting, politicians in Washington [on the east coast] blame taxpayers for not paying enough in taxes. [Okay, so it's also true for our deep blue state here in the Northwest.]
4. President Trump has stated that "our tax code is a giant, self-inflicted economic wound," and started the process to simplify the tax code with his 2017 tax cuts - but there is still much work to be done to eliminate special interest tax breaks and make tax day easier for all Americans.
5. Liberals stopped Congress from fully repealing the Death Tax, which deprives children of their parents' hard -earned wealth, kills jobs and imposes a severe burden on businesses. [I can related personally to this, as my mother-in-law who passed away recently has revealed to us in handling the estate that the government takes its share.]
6. The middle-class tax cuts of 2017 are temporary and will eventually expire, which will revert taxes back to sky-high levels.
7. Taxpayers in Washington [D.C.] are seeing an average tax cut of $1,393 - a 11.0% decrease in taxes - after the 2017 Trump tax cuts, with  an average increase in take-home pay of $23,855 over the next ten years. Tax plans proposed by liberal politicians who control the U.S. House of Representatives would undo these tax cuts and add new taxes on people in your area. [Great! On top of what our own state legislature and governor are proposing in the current legislative session that started just last week.] 

Update: Here's what's come out on MLK Jr.'s day from the Kitsap News.

“This governor campaigned twice on not raising taxes, yet every budget he’s ever proposed has raised taxes,” said Rep. Drew MacEwen, (R-Union). “It’s time to start reining in spending.” That’s what Republicans are saying about Inslee and Democrats pushing an income tax. Last week, the Legislature began evaluating the first of the laundry list of Inslee’s tax proposals. (Kitsap Daily News)

The irony to me, and most others who understand basic economics, is that while we have record surplus revenue - thanks to the president's tax cuts - the liberals in the state's legislature (new majority as of November's election) and our liberal governor - who's spending more time running for president in 2020 than taking care of a number of problems in his home state - are wanting to "ding" the middle-class out of more of their hard earned income despite this unprecedented circumstance.