BREAKING!!! Proof that anti-Clinton Bot Farms Exist in Macedonia!

People ridiculed Hillary Clinton when she said this:

Through content farms [in Macedonia], through an enormous investment in falsehoods, fake news, call it what you will ... The other side was using content that was just flat-out false, and delivering it in a very personalized way, both sort of above the radar screen and below. And you know, look, I’m not a tech expert by any stretch of the imagination. That really influenced the information that people were relying on. And there have been some studies done since the election that if you look — let’s pick Facebook. If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake. They were connected to, as we now know, the 1,000 Russian agents who were involved in delivering those messages. They were connected to the bots that are just out of control. We see now this new information about Trump’s Twitter account being populated by millions of bots.

This "new information" was disclosed this morning on the Drudge Report, so we know it has to be true: "TWITTER BOTS WEAPONIZED FOR POLITICS: The billionaire GOP patron behind Trump's social media bot army."

A GOP donor who once had ties to IBM is the man behind the millions of Twitter bots President Trump counts on as followers who could be employed to target voters with misleading or fake news on social media.

In order for it to work, the scheme relies on the quiet guidance of Robert Mercer, a reclusive Republican mega-donor and staunch Trump supporter, sources told the Daily News...

...While pretty much any one computer scientist with the right motives could help someone in the Trump camp do such a thing — most AI technology at this moment is open source and freely available online if one knows where to look — the proximity of Mercer to the Trump camp, in particular, raises questions.

Long before making his fortune at Renaissance Technologies, his current hedge fund, Mercer, 70, worked at IBM, where his name appeared on several patents and on in many publications and studies about “Brown clustering,” which the computer giant used to create its Watson Artificial Intelligence systems.

Mercer did not respond to questions about his involvement with the Trump campaign.

Mercer, who helped get Breitbart News off the ground years ago with millions of dollars in donations, also invested at least $5 million in a firm called Cambridge Analytica, a small tech operation “that mines online data to reach and influence potential voters” and “uses secret psychological methods to pinpoint which messages are the most persuasive to individual online viewers,” The New Yorker magazine reported earlier this year.

 Let that sink in for a moment, dear reader: "secret psychological methods"!!!!!

And now for the real BOMBSHELL!!!!!
I've learned from several anonymous sources and a friend of mine on Twitter that Robert Mercer has deep ties to computer hackers who acknowledge that they have heard of Russia, the KGB and Vladimir Putin!

Moreover, anonymous sources close to Mercer have confirmed that Robert Mercer has the same last name as Ilana Mercer, a popular paleoconservative author and columnist in the US who was born in South Africa, who is an immigrant herself (but holds a hard-line position AGAINST illegal immigration ), who was an early Trump supporter AND who has written a book about Trump, titled: The Trump Revolution (cryptically and subversively subtitled: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed)!!!

Furthermore, Ilana Mercer has not denied the persistent internet allegation that she actually owns a bot farm in Macedonia!! Reportedly, the Senate Intel Committee is preparing a subpoena and an anonymous spokesperson promises that the Committee "will get to the bottom of this whole sordid affair."

Why Are We Here?

Science may infer how we got here, but scientists can never discover why. "Why" is a matter for philosophy and faith. Although comforting and essential to an individual, I've never thought it really mattered to society. If you wake up as an amnesiac and find yourself stranded with many others in the middle of the Amazon jungle, does the "why" really matter to the problem of how to get along? You make the best of it. You try to survive. You try to coexist with your fellow survivors who have varying and contradictory ideas about "how" and "why" and "what now?" This last is something humans can know if we take the time and put our minds to the problem.

It seems to me in such a situation you can proceed along one of two roads: you can attempt to coerce others to act as you prefer them to act, or you can attempt to learn by reason and logic how individuals MUST act in order for all to survive and thrive. Not surprisingly, after about a billion years of failed attempts we still find ourselves at the same crossroad.

When you're young you indulge dreams that all of mankind can and will travel together along the right and proper road. You believe that "love" or some other mystical, unifying "human" spirit will take us all there. But the older you get you conclude that dreams of universal human concord are chimeras. So you stake out your position on the road you conclude you MUST take for your sake and your family's sake, the road that will allow you to survive not only the elements of nature but also the wrath of those staked out along the other road, those whose purpose it is to force you to travel with them.

So far, the story of man has been the history of this struggle.

When Scientists Reach a Consensus...

The US is the only industrialized country without universal national healthcare. The implication is that it is foolish for the US to resist the consensus of modern progressive policymakers and mainstream medical practitioners.

We're hearing the same argument now that President Trump has pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords. We are told that a consensus of world climate scientists knows the truth about climate change, a truth the rest of us mere mortals can't comprehend. Those who disagree with this consensus of scientists are scorned as truth "deniers."

In the 1940's and 1950's Americans heard much the same thing. A new medical procedure was being touted as a miracle cure for mental illness. It soon earned the praise of mainstream medical scientists. Western countries eagerly adopted the practice:

The procedure, controversial from its inception, was a mainstream procedure in some Western countries for more than two decades (prescribed for psychiatric and occasionally other conditions) despite general recognition of frequent and serious side effects. While some patients experienced symptomatic improvement with the operation, this was achieved at the cost of creating other impairments, and this balance between benefits and risks contributed to the controversial nature of the procedure.

The originator of the procedure, Antonio Egas Moniz, received the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1949.

The procedure began to be...

...touted by some as a miracle cure for mental illness, and its use became widespread; during its heyday in the 1940s and ’50s, the [procedure]...was performed on some 40,000 patients in the United States, and on around 10,000 in Western Europe. The procedure became popular because there was no alternative, and because it was seen to alleviate several social crises: overcrowding in psychiatric institutions, and the increasing cost of caring for mentally ill patients.

The American clinical neurologist Walter Freeman championed the procedure and was largely responsible for bringing it to the United States. However, the procedure required sterile operating rooms, anesthesia and skilled surgeons. As a result, many patients in institutions across the country were denied the benefits of the procedure because their institutions lacked these resources.

Consequently, in 1945 Freeman pioneered a new technique that eliminated these obstacles and made the procedure available to virtually everyone.

Freeman’s new technique could be performed in about 10 minutes. Because it did not require anesthesia, it could be performed outside of the clinical setting, and...patients did not need hospital internment afterwards. Thus, Freeman often performed [the procedure]...in his Washington D.C. office...on anyone who was referred to him. During his career, he would perform almost 3,500 operations.

Freeman's procedure is as follows:

With the patient rendered unconscious by electroshock, an instrument was inserted above the eyeball through the orbit using a hammer. Once inside the brain, the instrument was moved back and forth; this was then repeated on the other side. (The ice-pick lobotomy, named as such because the instrument used resembled the tool with which ice is broken, is therefore also known as the transorbital lobotomy...)

Witnessing an ice-pick lobotomy is not for the squeamish. According to one report "during one filmed screening at a Bristol high school 5 students fainted and had to be dragged out."

If you have a strong stomach, you can watch Freeman performing his procedure at: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f0_1404078269

CAUTION: CONTENT IS GRAPHIC AND MAY BE DISTURBING

Freeman’s surgeries were so brutal to behold that during one filmed screening at a Bristol high school 5 students fainted and had to be dragged out1…care to see for yourself? - See more at: http://www.madscientistblog.ca/walter-freeman-ice-pick-lobotomist/#sthash.nXMY3WZW.dpuf

Freeman’s surgeries were so brutal to behold that during one filmed screening at a Bristol high school 5 students fainted and had to be dragged out1…care to see for yourself? - See more at: http://www.madscientistblog.ca/walter-freeman-ice-pick-lobotomist/#sthash.nXMY3WZW.dpuf

You Really Can't Fix Stupid

This tweet from Elizabeth Spiers is all the rage lately on Twitter:

My response to a right-wing blogger who called me a kook and a loser for stating that Donald Trump is a liar / water is wet: pic.twitter.com/pAp18w2x3W

— Elizabeth Spiers (@espiers) May 28, 2017

Here is my response to Ms. Spiers:

She's talking about you, Doug! And maybe me, although I don't consider myself part of Trump's base. I was dragged kicking and screaming into voting for Trump. I was well aware of his shortcomings, but I considered the alternative: a lying, conniving, big government, progressive weasel named Clinton who would have been another Obama and would likely have extended our military entanglements with foreign governments and intensified our conflicts with Russia, possibly leading the country to war sooner than later.

So now we've got a lying, conniving, smaller government, sometimes conservative weasel named Trump who is less likely to extend our military entanglements and who intends a rapprochement with Russia. And then there's the added benefit of his appointment of a conservative Supreme Court Justice (and maybe more to come), the end of US participation in the Climate Change nonsense, a simplification of the tax code and a reduction in tax rates, repeal of ObamaCare, deregulation of the economy, a crackdown on illegal immigration, a better environment for business, an end to Obama's support for diversity, white privilege and the rest of the SJW/political correctness absurdities and an end to pandering to Islam while re-establishing our tradition of Christian values and practices. Yes, Trump's Secretary of State cancelled the "Ramadan event" at the State Department and that was a very big deal. (I know such things, Ms. Spiers, stick in your leftist craw like the breast bone of a turkey, and that pleases me.)

If Ms. Spiers and the rest of the leftists who replied to her tweet with favor were truly honest, they would admit that their definition of the word "stupid" or "idiot" is any person or any policy that doesn't agree with their progressive, leftist agenda. Thus, the more I find pleasing to my eye about Trump's actions and policies, the more "stupid" and "idiotic" Trump and Trump's base appear in their eyes.

I say to hell with these posturing elitists. I love stupid Trump. I support Trump's stupid base. I hope eight more years of Trump stupidity actually does make America great again.

And that's more than progressive politicians and the leftist media can say because my idea of a "Great" America is the exact opposite of theirs. They want to bring Trump down because they want to bring his stupid vision of a Great America down. They yearn for the good old days of the last eight years of unchecked leftist, progressive Obama-ism.

And the fact that they lost it unexpectedly and they can't have it back -- now -- is killing them! (Admit it, all you "better than thou" "smarter than thou" Trump critics! It's killing you, isn't it. LOL)

The only threats I see to the possibility of making America great and stupid again is Trump getting cold feet, or the progressive, unconstitutional and unAmerican Democrat "Resistance" taking the Trump administration down with a political and media-driven soft coup. If you leftist chaps manage that -- which I know you hope to do with all your heart -- then you better strap yourself in because we stupid Americans will not take the nullification of our votes for Trump lying down.

You righteous, obnoxious pussy-hatters will finally learn that stupidity runs deeper than you think in this country.

A Simple Proposal That Many Regard As Terrifying

I simply propose that each American mind his own private property and engage in voluntary exchanges and associations rather than exchanges mandated by political and bureaucratic rules and regulations. We act like adults and outlaw murder and theft. We do what we want, bear the consequences of our actions and take care of our own and the ones we love without the threat of legal or monetary punishment by the "authorities." We live where we want, how we want and with whom we want without restriction or conditions.

"You believe in the absolute perfection of laissez faire capitalism just as some worship Jesus, or Marxists trust in the ascent of worker control."

Does an engineer "worship" mathematics and physics because he insists building bridges by any other means is counter-productive?

In capitalism, or more accurately in free markets wherein the means of production are private property, consumers are sovereign and the market serves them most efficiently. The micro-version of that is in a free and voluntary exchange of private property both parties ALWAYS benefit. In socialism, or more accurately in a system wherein the means of production and the distribution of production are controlled by government bureaucrats, consumers become clients of the bureaucrats, there are three parties involved in every transaction and the state decides who benefits and who loses.

There are plenty of countries today that are more free than socialistic. Just Google the most prosperous countries on earth and you'll have a list. If you Google the most poverty-stricken countries on earth, you'll have a list of countries wherein government control of the economy is tight-fisted.

The reason there aren't more highly prosperous countries is because their citizens insist that the government interfere in each private transaction so it can take from the able and give to the "needy," where "needy" is defined however these citizens and their strong-armed government allies choose to define it.

 Broder's rule: When a society says that theft and redistribution is legitimate government activity don't be surprised at who shows up to fight for a place at the government trough when the free-for-all breaks out.

This Is What Scares The Hell Out Of Me!

I'm talking about the "Russian Thing" and all its facets and controversies. The gravity is obvious. If true, a President will fall. If false, a rock will have been turned over in the Washington Swamp. Robert Swan Mueller III is eager to decide what is true or false, officially.

What I find most scary is the noise. I'm relatively new to Twitter, a high tech echo chamber that allows a curious soul to overhear what journalists, politicians and experts "know" and what the unwashed believe is true. Twitter enables anyone to add their two cents worth to the noise. When the subject is the "Russian Thing," the noise is deafening.

When everybody shouts an opinion, the truth is lost in the noise.

Take Seth Rich. The poor kid got himself murdered in the Swamp and now the beasts are taking to Twitter shouting about who done it and why it matters. The players range from Seth's parents to some tattooed sap in South Dakota whose only interest in Seth's murder is revenge for a Clinton vote cast in vain.

The stakes are immense and everyone knows it...especially the Swamp dwellers. The war of words and images is savage and unrelenting but it will settle nothing, this absurd cacophony of power lust. Each voice trying to shout down another, trying to impose its opinion and will on the rest.

This is what scares the hell out of me. The spectacle of it. The importance of it. The personal stake that every Tweeter imagines he has in solving the murder of Seth Rich to his own political advantage.

When a nation decides that the Swamp must decide on a one-size-fits-all policy for everything from health care to milk marketing to finger nail polish, the political battle over that policy becomes a blood sport and the noise on Twitter becomes instantly ear-piercing as the Swamp things fight a life and death battle to determine who is in charge, who will be the final decider.

The absurd futility of the process is striking and obvious. But the noise rages on.

This is what scares the hell out of me.

Washington DC Is The Bad Joke

I read this morning that back in June of last year the Republican Majority leader in Congress was recorded as saying in a private meeting with colleagues that he thinks Trump is on Putin's payroll.

Now that this moldy news has appeared as a worldwide news flash this week in the Washington Post Rep. Kevin McCarthy is claiming his comment was just a bad joke.

Reuters reported that it "could not confirm authenticity or gauge whether McCarthy was joking" because it "does not have a copy of the tape."

Seriously?

I got news for Reuters, McCarthy, the Washington Post and every other beast inhabiting the swamp: Washington DC is the bad joke.

All I can say is keep it up boys and girls in the swamp. Keep acting like the spoiled, privileged brats that you are. Keep throwing tantrums. Keep taking the stupid games you play seriously. Keep taking yourselves seriously. All you are doing now is proving to those who don't already know that you are all a bunch of pathetic losers.

We tried taking you morons seriously once or twice before. We tried last November. But you snubbed us, laughed at us, made us the brunt of the gigantic, inside joke you call the federal government and the Department of Justice.

We sent Mr. Trump to Washington to drain your swamp.

Well, your very existence proves that ain't working.

Here's another news flash for you clowns: Nothing you do in Washington DC matters. All the issues you argue and fight about are petty and absurd. They are nothing more than figments of your inflated ego.

Nobody out here in flyover country gives a damn about the games you play. You're simply not relevant to anything we hold dear: our families, our liberty, our property.

We won't rest until the swamp is drained and you're flopping on shore like a dying fish.

You guys in the swamp remind me of my student government in high school, full of sound, fury and self-importance, but ultimately signifying nothing.

But keep messing with us and you'll really get our dander up. Then, we'll get really, really pissed.

Then the joke will be on you!

What Did You Expect?

President Trump ran the most unconventional election campaign in the history of the nation.

President Trump is the crudest character to win election to the Presidency since Andrew Jackson.

President Trump promised to go to Washington, DC and "drain the swamp."

From Day One of his Presidency, Trump has acted like a bull in the swamp china shop.

The swamp media is out to get him.

The swamp establishment is out to crucify him.

Even some of those who supported his run for the Presidency are becoming impatient awaiting the miracles Trump promised to perform for them.

Those parasites who depend on the swamp to nourish them are beginning to flop like fish out of water.

They are desparate.

As they gasp for life, they will say and do anything to destroy the threat Trump presents to them.

Were you foolish enough to expect something different?

Is There A Robotic Nirvana In Our Future?

On another website a person I was corresponding with made the following statement: "A society of robots with identical perfectly liberal programming could logically have zero conflict." We hear a lot these days about the next or final generation of robots that will challenge human beings for control in society because these robots will not be plagued by the intellectual imperfections and emotional foibles that handicap human beings in their quest for a perfectly satisfying future. The idea that a "society of robots" could have "zero conflict" is intriguing and seductive but ultimately absurd.

A society of robots is a contradiction in terms. It assumes robots cannot think for themselves and cannot pursue ends at odds with the ends of their programmer. A thousand robots "with identical perfectly liberal programming" is no different than a yard filled with a thousand identical cars fresh off the assembly line, all designed and built by the same individual. There would be "zero conflict" among the cars in this new car parking lot because conflict results from contradictory human action. Where there is no human action there can be no conflict.

Introduce two human programmers and now you've got the potential for conflict, not emanating from the two distinct groups of identical robots but from the different ends the two programmers have likely pursued.

If the two programmers act on their own as totally separate and independent human beings, without cooperation or coordination one with the other, and the means available to attain their common end are scarce or their chosen ends are not exactly the same, there will likely be conflict.

Now, if the two programmers decide to cooperate, if they agree upon a chosen end and if they agree to act in concert to attain that chosen end, there will likely be no conflict, even if the means available to them are scarce and even if their cooperative action involves more than two programmers.

How would the two programmers coordinate their actions? They would have to agree to modify their behavior in such a way that their actions with regard to the scarce means used to attain their end would not be perceived by either as threatening. They would also have to forswear behavior which might deprive either of the benefits each hopes to individually realize once their cooperative end has been attained.

One way to modify their interpersonal behaviors to suit their needs would be to agree to refrain from any acts of murder and theft, one toward the other.

Could "culture" throw a monkey wrench into the plans of our two programmers? If the two programmers belonged to cultures that were philosophically opposed, if one programmer came from a trader culture, say Capt. Kirk, and the other programmer came from a warrior culture, say a Klingon for instance, would cooperation between the two or among the many be impossible and conflict inevitable?

Can Membership In A Cooperative Society Be Involuntary?

I am one who believes that it is possible (and preferable) for individuals to coexist peacefully with others in a cooperative society providing all individuals in that society consider murder, theft and all their corollaries taboo. I believe that government's only possible necessary function in such a society is to enforce these taboos. Such a society would result in a bare minimum of interpersonal disputes and social conflict.

I believe that every time the powers of government are employed to enforce taboos other than those against murder and theft, and every time the powers of government are employed to enforce positive individual rights, the probability of interpersonal disputes and social conflict increase accordingly.

Society-wide government enforcement of positive individual rights based on objective economic factors, such as the minimum wage, or on objective observable phenomena such as climate change is socially disruptive enough and is sure to create controversy and social conflict at barely tolerable levels.

However, now there are those who advocate society-wide government enforcement of pseudo-scientific, subjective states of mind and emotion, such as gender choice, hate crimes and racism. The resultant interpersonal disputes and social conflict such enforcement will generate is sure to cause society to reach a critical mass, i.e., to Balkanize into warring factions.

We are seeing such Balkanization in the US today because a cooperative society by definition must be a voluntary society. If the trend in the US continues, i.e., relying on government to enforce among its citizens laws and regulations based on subjective feelings and emotion, we will witness the inevitable demise of the greatest and most extensive cooperative society individuals ever created on the face of the earth.

This Just In From WikiLeaks -- CIA Bugs iPhones, Engages In False Flag Cyberattacks!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...se-8am-eastern 

The Democrats' "Russian hacking" meme just went up in smoke. The very agency that the Dems used to "prove" their allegation that the Russians hacked our election, the CIA, is responsible for the hacking!!!!

WikiLeaks has published what it claims is the largest ever release of confidential documents on the CIA. It includes more than 8,000 documents as part of ‘Vault 7’, a series of leaks on the agency, which have allegedly emerged from the CIA's Center For Cyber Intelligence in Langley...

A total of 8,761 documents have been published as part of ‘Year Zero’, the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed ‘Vault 7.’ WikiLeaks said that ‘Year Zero’ revealed details of the CIA’s “global covert hacking program,” including “weaponized exploits” used against company products including “Apple's iPhone, Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.” ...

Among the key topical revelations is that the CIA can engage in "false flag" cyberattacks which portray Russia as the assailant. Discussing the CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group, Wikileaks' source notes that it "collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation...

Remember the good old days when the Democrats considered the CIA something other than their most trusted "good guy" friend and ally?

ObamaCare-Lite

The Republican leadership, who for all intents and purposes is the Democrat-Lite leadership, has just revealed its first (I hope) attempt at repealing and replacing ObamaCare. I haven't read the bill (reportedly, it's 125 pages long and shrouded in secrecy!!!!) but from reading news accounts the American Health-Care Act (virtually a contradiction in terms) is, as many expected, ObamaCare-Lite.

Instead of deregulation of the health care/health insurance industry and free market reforms, ObamaCare-Lite brings us Democrat-Lite re-regulation and not even a whiff of anything resembling an open and free market.

Pres. Trump tweeted about the new bill: "Our wonderful new Healthcare Bill is now out for review and negotiation. ObamaCare is a complete and total disaster - is imploding fast!"

I sure hope it's open for negotiation. Otherwise ObamaCare-Lite will destroy the tenuous Trump coalition and usher in another leftist government in 2020.

Trump is already making excuses for his "wonderful" bill, tweeting 30 minutes ago: "Don't worry, getting rid of state lines, which will promote competition, will be in phase 2 & 3 of healthcare rollout. @foxandfriends."

And this 27 minutes ago: "I am working on a new system where there will be competition in the Drug Industry. Pricing for the American people will come way down!"

So after having 8 years to draft and polish up an ObamaCare repeal and replacement law and strategy, the Republican-Lite leadership only managed to produce "Phase 1" of their plan yesterday. Phases 2 and 3 are yet to come, along with lower healthcare costs, drug costs and re-engineered smoke and mirrors. This all sounds suspiciously like Nancy Pelosi's "we'll have to pass our healthcare law in order to know what's in it" bull shit.

I am not an "Always Trumper." I am aboard the Trump train reluctantly. Genuine repeal and replacement of ObamaCare is one of the few places I counted on the Trump train to stop. Now it seems that train is derailed before it even leaves the station.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/06/th...bill-is-here-i

 After months of confusion and secrecy, House Republicans have finally revealed their Obamacare repeal legislation. While it's useful to have House Republicans on the record with a legislative plan, the plan doesn't offer any estimate for how much it would cost, or how many people it would (or wouldn't) cover. In general, it's not clear what problems this particular bill would actually solve.

The bill would replace Obamacare's subsidies with a system of tax credits and halt the law's Medicaid expansion at the end of the decade while grandfathering in many beneficiaries over the long term and giving states $100 billion in funding to work with to care for hard case patients. All in all, it's a fairly conventional Republican plan, modified in ways designed to mitigate recent political objections.

The tax credit is, for the moment, the most controversial component of the legislation. As in previous drafts of the bill, the credits are refundable, meaning that individuals will be eligible for them even if their total tax liability is lower than the amount of the credit. The federal government would pay people, even if their federal tax bill was zero. It's a subsidy, basically, rather like the one in Obamacare. Conservative legislators have argued that such a system would be little more than Obamacare lite. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has complained that any refundable credit is tantamount to "a new entitlement program."

Unlike Obamacare, which bases its credits on income, the GOP bills we've seen so far are based on age. That creates another set of political headaches, because it means that wealthier folks get tax credits, and because it means that older people would get less help than under Obamacare, in hopes of creating a scheme that lures more young and health people into the system.

The bill released tonight attempts to mitigate these problems by capping the refundable credit so that households earning more than $150,000 would be reduced, and individuals making more than $215,000 would get nothing at all. But that still leaves a credit that is refundable for most people, and adds a bit of additional administrative work: Under Obamacare, judging an individual's employment and income has proven more than a little difficult, and the same would continue to be true here.

So Republicans would be replacing one set of insurance subsidies with another set of insurance subsidies, while killing the individual mandate but leaving many of the law's insurance regulations intact (with a penalty for insurance gaps). There's a reason that legislators like Michigan Rep. Justin Amash are already referring to it as "Obamacare 2.0."

On the other hand, the bill would probably result in the disruption of current health insurance for millions (although it's hard to say with confidence how many, for reasons I'll explain in a moment), and we don't yet have an estimate as to what effect it would have on the budget.

Beyond that, the bill would provide a hefty payment to states, about $100 billion over 10 years, for states to use to fund safety nets of their own design. And then there's the bill's Medicaid rollback, another awkward balancing act. It keeps the state-level optionality granted by the Supreme Court in 2012, and allows states to keep the law's expanded funding for Medicaid beneficiaries up through the end of 2019, and for those who maintain continuous coverage after. So the enhanced Medicaid matching funds provided by Obamacare would dwindle away over time. This is as much a political compromise as an actual policy measure. Will it appease the four Republican Senators who pledged today to oppose the repeal of the law's Medicaid expansion? No one knows.

 Grow a pair, Republicans. Have the guts to do what "we the people" sent you there to do. If you don't, well, enjoy your four years in power, Trump Ryan McConnell & Company, you'll never wield a gavel again in DC...ever.

Chris Cuomo's Tears Of A Clown

CNN reported "BREAKING NEWS" this morning: Trump officials other than Michael Flynn were in "constant" contact with "the Russians" during the campaign!

Wow! Stop the presses and the World! I want to get off!

Chris Cuomo, who always strikes me as being at the point of tears, breathlessly reported on this "crisis," calling it "explosive" and saying it is stirring up a "firestorm." He peppered his reporting with references to violations of the "Logan Act." Several times he asked rhetorically: "Who knew what and when?" In an interview he even suggested that Congress should appoint a "Special Prosecutor" to investigate!

Give me a break!

Cuomo's parody of reportorial Watergate angst was quite good. If it had been performed on another network during Saturday Night Live, it might even have been funny.

Apparently, Trump stepped on some toes over at CNN with his criticism that the network reports "fake" news. If this morning's performance by Cuomo and company is any indication, CNN also drums up fake crises.

Trump has been President now for only a few weeks and his administration has been under concerted fire from Day One by Democrats, the mainstream media and George Soros, who has funded political disruption by hooligans around the country.

I get it. Trump won. The Washington snakes and frogs are hissing and croaking at the prospect of their swamp being drained.

As far as I'm concerned watching guys like Cuomo squirm at CNN is great entertainment. But I could care less about his blather.

Carry on, Mr. Trump!