RUTHFULLY YOURS

WASHINGTON—Republicans advanced legislation through two House committees on Thursday as part of their goal to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, but signs of discord spread around the capital as conservative lawmakers warned this version of the health-law overhaul won’t pass.

On party-line votes, the committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means approved measures repealing major parts of the 2010 health law, known as Obamacare, with the goal of holding a floor vote later this month.

Conservatives fired warning shots at Republican leaders in an open challenge to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), who said Republicans could either line up behind the House bill or renege on their promise to repeal the law.

“It really comes down to a binary choice,” Mr. Ryan said. “This is the chance, and the best and only chance we’re gonna get.”

Conservatives disputed that assessment, going public with concerns that their leaders’ approach would create a new entitlement program centered on refundable tax credits and saying the bill should instead aim at reducing premiums and other costs. The first warning flare of the day was sent up Thursday morning by Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), who wrote on Twitter that the current House bill wouldn’t pass the Senate.

“To my friends in House: pause, start over. Get it right, don’t get it fast,” Mr. Cotton tweeted. “What matters in long run is better, more affordable health care for Americans, NOT House leaders’ arbitrary legislative calendar.” CONTINUE AT SITE

After a lifetime of radical anti-American activism and passionate legal advocacy for foreign and domestic terrorists, cop-killers, and gangsters, convicted terrorist enabler Lynne Stewart died at her home in Brooklyn – instead of in prison where she was supposed to be.

Her son said Stewart, 77, expired Tuesday from complications related to cancer and a series of strokes. Mourners who run the website of “Democracy Now!” ran a headline describing her as the “People’s Lawyer & [Former] Political Prisoner.” The article called her “[a] former teacher and librarian, [who] was known as a people’s lawyer who represented the poor and revolutionaries.”

That represents only part of the life story of the self-described “radical human rights attorney” and cheerleader for totalitarianism.

This outspoken, persistent, quick-witted woman didn’t look like a zealous subversive. She may have been a bit too extreme for many liberals but they gave her a pass because, after all, her heart was in the right place. To the Left, this Maoist who said she favored “violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions,” was an endearing, grandmotherly figure blessed with a disarming honesty.

“I’m not a pacifist,” she once said. “I have cried many bitter tears. There is death in history, and it’s not all rosebuds and memorial services. Mao, Fidel [Castro], Ho Chi Minh understood this.”

“I don’t have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders or certainly Fidel [Castro] locking up people they see as dangerous,” Stewart told Monthly Review in 2002. “Because so often, dissidence has been used by the greater powers to undermine a people’s revolution.”

This lovable, folksy ball of fluff hailed the Black Lives Matter-inspired killers who gunned down police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge last year as noble freedom fighters.

“They are avengers,” Stewart said. “They spoke for some of us when they did that.”

“They are not brazen, crazed, you know, insane killers,” she said. “They are avenging deaths that are never and have never been avenged since the ’60s and ’70s.”

Stewart likened American conservatives to the theocratic totalitarians of the Islamic world who abuse women, treating them as chattel. “The American Right,” she said, “is certainly anti-woman, anti-inclusiveness, and I certainly oppose that here in my own country for my own sake, for my children’s sake, for the way I want to live.”

She was simply misunderstood.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/cate-blanchett-on-stephen-colbert-my-moral-compass-is-in-my-vagina/news-story/b6c1f0f3e5501d7379f18bf91f59265d

OSCAR-WINNING actress Cate Blanchett has joked about the surprising location of her moral compass.

The Australian star was a guest on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, where she was promoting her debut in a Broadway play, Anton Chekhov’s The Present.

Describing the themes of the play, she said: “It’s all about as you move forward in life, what’s your moral compass. Where does kindness and humanity sit in a really brutal world.”

When Colbert asked her where her moral compass lay, she said: “It’s in my vagina.”As the audience screamed and applauded, Blanchett pretended to leave the set while an embarrassed Colbert shook her hand.

In Monday’s Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty usefully outlined some intriguing statements made by former Obama national intelligence director James Clapper regarding the FISA surveillance controversy. Clapper’s remarks, in an interview by NBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet the Press on Sunday, are being taken as a blanket denial of the allegations that the Obama administration used the Justice Department and FBI to investigate Trump-campaign figures, potentially including Trump himself.

But what Clapper said is far from a wholesale rejection of the allegations. To be sure, General Clapper’s statements convincingly shoot down the claim that Trump himself was wiretapped by the government. But to my knowledge, no one has made that claim other than President Trump, in a series of controversial tweets on Saturday morning. Clapper’s statements do nothing to undermine the overarching allegation that the Obama Justice Department investigated associates of Trump who had varying connections to his campaign.

I’m going to assume the truth of General Clapper’s statements. Understandably, many commentators stress that, in the past, he has been caught testifying to things that were untrue (denying bulk metadata collection by intelligence agencies) or ridiculous (asserting that the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely secular”). Making false or misleading statements under oath is serious business, so obviously this history weighs on Clapper’s credibility.

Still, I’ve never believed he was fundamentally a shady character. On the metadata issue, he gave an untrue answer to a senator who intentionally asked an unfair question about classified information in a public setting (though that, of course, is no justification for answering falsely). On the Muslim Brotherhood, he was dutifully toeing the Obama line — not admirable, but not shocking. Those things aside, Clapper is a longtime soldier and intelligence pro, generally well regarded by his peers. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt that, in the Sunday interview, he was trying in good faith to walk the difficult tightrope of answering questions accurately while not compromising sensitive or classified information.

Now, before parsing General Clapper’s statements, let’s rehearse the allegations that have been made about Obama-administration investigative activity against the Trump circle — understanding (as I underscored in yesterday’s column) that we are necessarily speculating based on reporting that we cannot verify because the relevant documents (if they exist) have not been disclosed.

Khizr Kahn, the Gold Star father whose speech at the Democratic National Convention became a sensation when he accused Donald Trump of never having read the Constitution, says he was forced to cancel a speech in Canada because his travel privileges were being “reviewed” by the U.S. government. Now, after several attempts by news outlets to clarify how it is possible that a U.S. citizen could be denied travel, it has become an open question whether Khan is lying.

Washington Post:

Ramsay Talks, the organizer of the event Khan was to speak at, seemed to take Khan at his word on Monday and included a statement from him in a cancellation post on Facebook. “This turn of events is not just of deep concern to me but to all my fellow Americans who cherish our freedom to travel abroad,” said Khan, according to the post. “I have not been given any reason as to why. I am grateful for your support and look forward to visiting Toronto in the near future.”

The claim, which does not state which U.S. agency contacted him, immediately raised doubts about how it was possible that a U.S. citizen was being prevented from traveling abroad.

On Tuesday, Bob Ramsay, who runs Ramsay Talks, said he didn’t know the specifics of Khan’s predicament. “I don’t know exactly who conducted the review, but in speaking with Mr. Khan, it was certainly U.S. authorities,” Ramsay said. “That’s all I know.”

As questions about his motivations for making the claim swirl, Khan has refused to elaborate on his initial statement to The Washington Post and other publications. A more detailed request for clarification did not receive an immediate response Tuesday afternoon.

It is unclear whether Khan has previously traveled outside the United States since he was naturalized.

U.S. citizens don’t need visas to enter Canada, or even the electronic travel authorizations required of all other foreign visitors there. As a general rule, the United States cannot prevent passport-holding citizens from traveling if they have not been charged with a crime. Public records indicate that Khan has no criminal history, either at the federal level, in Charlottesville, where he lives, or in Silver Spring, his previous place of residence. Furthermore, U.S. Customs and Border Protection told Politico that, as a rule, it does not contact travelers before their trips.

The Canadian foreign ministry also denied issuing any review of Khan’s ability to travel there.

“We are unaware of any restrictions regarding this traveler,” said Camielle Edwards, spokeswoman for Canada’s Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen.

As President Trump focuses on jobs, Barack Obama’s oddness as a President is thrown into relief. How little we heard about jobs during Obama’s two terms — not even jobs in the inner city. We did hear a great deal about racism and sexism and homophobia on college campuses. On college campuses?

The media created the impression that Obama didn’t do much as president besides fundraise and play golf. He was actually both busy and effective in radicalizing his chosen identity groups.

It is not necessary for the hard-left to win over a majority of their targeted demographics. They only need to create a vocal, domineering minority that gets their hands on the levers of power and money. Nowhere do we see the success of this strategy more than on college campuses.

Jobs for radicals was Obama’s major jobs initiative: get progressives hired on campus, where they recruit thousands of young people, encouraging vulnerable kids to major in grievance studies, then use threats and funds from the federal government, and campus agitation to require more hiring of grievance professors and staff, more power for the hard left.

Obama’s Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department and the Department of Education’s own Office for Civil Rights accused our colleges of being hotbeds of racism and rape. In response, colleges staffed up their rape protection, diversity and bias offices – 150 full time professionals at U.C. Berkeley alone. These professional community organizers set to work creating a culture of antagonism and grievance on campus. They turned colleges into centers of progressive indoctrination and bullying.

UC Berkeley’s Division of Equity and Inclusion has placed vertical banners across the main campus reminding students of the contemporary university’s paramount mission: assigning guilt and innocence within the ruthlessly competitive hierarchy of victimhood. Each banner shows a photo … beside a purported quotation from that student or bureaucrat. (snip) “I will think before I speak and act,” promises a white male student from the class of 2016. … it means: “I will mentally scan the University of California’s official list of microaggressions …

The transformation of our campuses into Orwellian safe spaces for snowflakes did not happen spontaneously. There was a snow machine behind it all. Obama’s Department of Education sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter to every campus in America, threatening them with sexual discrimination lawsuits and loss of federal funds. Due process for those accused, protection for free speech or freedom of religion, were no longer allowed on campus – our Bill of Rights is redefined as abusive to victims.

Williams documents how she went from being “Dean of Students” (to) “Dean of Sexual Assault

“… because of misguided pressure from the Office of Civil Rights and the Obama administration as part of their hysterical campaign against the alleged campus rape culture.

The new head of the DNC, Tom Perez, led the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. He deliberately scared the heck out of college administrations:

For reasons that baffled us all, OCR released a list of colleges and universities under investigation for alleged Title IX complaints, despite the fact that these institutions had not yet been found to be in violation of anything.

During the campaign, Donald Trump said that improving the quality of life in our nation’s inner cities would be a focus of his presidency and that better outcomes for the urban poor would flow from better educational opportunities. Apparently, it wasn’t just talk.

Since winning the election, Mr. Trump has tapped a school-choice stalwart in Betsy DeVos to head the Education Department. In a joint address to Congress last week, he called for an education bill that would allow low-income families “to choose the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school that is right for them.” On Friday, Mr. Trump and Mrs. DeVos visited a Catholic school in Orlando, Fla., where hundreds of low-income students attend with the help of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship program.

The Washington Post reported that Mr. Trump’s was the first visit to a Catholic school by a sitting president since Ronald Reagan in 1984 and “a clear signal that the Trump administration intends to push forward with expanding school choice as a key priority.” That’s welcome news to millions of low-income minority parents nationwide who have long expressed overwhelming support for reforms that would free their children to matriculate at schools not controlled by teachers unions.

President Obama also claimed to support school choice, but he was referring only to those education options approved by the teachers unions that bankroll the Democratic Party. In practice, the Obama administration worked to shut down voucher programs in Washington and elsewhere and thus reduce choice for the disadvantaged. For Mr. Trump, school choice means the parents get to decide—not the president or special-interest groups. There’s a reason why 56% of voters tell pollsters that President Trump is doing what he said he would do.

Now that the Senate has approved Ben Carson as housing secretary, the administration is poised to help poor communities in other ways. A primary function of the Housing and Urban Development Department is to oversee various rental-assistance programs for people in need. How these HUD initiatives are administered at the federal and local levels can have a major impact on the life outcomes of our most vulnerable citizens.

As someone who was raised in poverty before becoming a world-renowned brain surgeon, Mr. Carson knows that his background differs greatly from that of the typical Washington bureaucrat, let alone cabinet secretary. In some respects this means he will bring a different perspective to the task. But it also means that he has his work cut out for him. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Carson said that in preparation for the new job he would go on a “listening tour” of the country. Instead of talking only to “the sage people of D.C.,” he quipped, “I want to hear from people with boots on the ground who are administering programs.” Imagine that. CONTINUE AT SITE