If you can’t get you way one way you get your way through a different way; either way you get your way!
Tag Archives: War on Women
Dear CNN: Why Is A Former Obama Appointee Reporting On Susan Rice Revelation?
Demorats I mean Marxists are allowed to do anything they want.
Socialism Contradicts Freedom of Religion – Why Amish do not Pay Social Security Taxes
Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption
Re-Posted Apr 5, 2017 by Martin Armstrong
In 1935, Roosevelt introduced “The Social Security Act” which passed Congress. However, the act was described “Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.” At first, the Act covered only industry and commerce. It was later extended to include farm operators in 1955. The SS tax was to be at the rate of 3% of income up to an established limit.
The Amish pay taxes because the Bible said: “paying unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” It was in 1956 that the IRS went to tell the Amish they were now under Social Security and they would have to pay. One Amishman was quoted in a November 1962 Reader’s Digest article: “Allowing our members to shift their interdependence on each other to dependence upon any outside source would inevitably lead to the breakup of our order.” The constitutional question that has never been decided, what happens when the taxing power of government violates the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion? It clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Then Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, that there should be “a wall of separation between church and state.” They feared that a minority religion could be subjugated by the Federal Government acknowledging a national religion. The Johnson Amendment, named for Lyndon Johnson, is a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. If churches involve themselves in politics, then indeed that creates a reverse problem where the state can be taken over by one religion and oppress all others; so it can go both ways. Historically, religions have often seized governments and outlawed all other religions.
In this instance concerning taxation in direct conflict with religion, a group of Amish presented a petition to Congress, with 14,000 signatures. Naturally, Congress ignored them. The Amish reasonably questioned what possible harm they could do by not paying into Social Security. “We do not want to be burdensome, but we do not want to lose our birthright to everlasting glory, therefore we must do all we can to live our faith!”
The IRS moved to go after the Amish and seize their bank accounts. The problem was – they had none! The IRS then sought to go after anyone buying milk from the Amish and attach their payments to divert them to the IRS. Most simply refused for such a scheme would happen just once and end the business. The IRS, refusing to consider any religious principle, moved in to seize property. In this case of the Amish, that meant cows and horses. They would rather have the Amish die than respect anyone’s rights to religion.
Valentine Byler of the Amish community in Pennsylvania, owed four years of IRS taxes. The IRS, of course, tacked on interest and penalties to raise it up to $308.96. Byler argued his religion forbid paying insurance. The IRS said that was a “technicality” and that it was really just a tax. Vyler has no bank account to seize so they issued a summons to appear in court for a charge of contempt. The judge in Federal District Court in Pittsburgh, Pa, according to a Reader’s Digest article, “angrily demanded of the IRS agents, ‘Don’t you have anything better to do than to take a peaceful man off his farm and drag him into court?’” The Judge then dismissed the case.
The IRS never gives up. The IRS had to issue a statement on April 18, 1961 in which they said:
Since Mr. Byler had no bank account against which to levy for the tax due, it was decided as a last desperate measure to resort to seizure and sale of personal property.
The IRS seized three of Byler’s six horses while he was actually plowing the ground for the spring planting. The IRS then sold the three horses at auction on May 1, 1961 getting $460. They then used this to satisfy the $308.96 and then charged him $113.15 in expenses and graciously returned $37.89. The incident made national news and was being used by the Communists to show how capitalism was ruthless. The New York Herald Tribune, reported the story with the bold headline: “Welfarism Gone Mad.”
The IRS Chief of Collections was forced to respond claiming he was unaware of the plowing situation. “Plowing never occurred to me. I live in an apartment.” To show the mentality of those who are bureaucrats, he then said: “We don’t ask people their race or religion when we administer the tax laws. People have no right to use their religion as an excuse not to pay taxes.”
The IRS was then compelled to issue a press release in 1961, stating the Amish stance that “Social Security payments, in their opinion, are insurance premiums and not taxes. They, therefore, will not pay the ‘premium’ nor accept any of the benefits.”
The Amish met with the IRS Commissioner in September, 1961 in Washington, DC, They cited several Bible passages, including I Timothy 5:8, which says, “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.”
The public outrage at the conduct of the IRS was international. The Amish argued they were entitled to an exemption based on the First Amendment. The IRS agreed it would stop further seizures until the case was settled. Now, senators promised to try to pass a bill in Congress and everything stopped. The Amish hired a lawyer to challenge this conflict between the taxing power and the First Amendment. However, as the court date approached, they realized if they lost in court, it was over. They then looked to Congress to pursue a legislative exemption. Finally, in 1965, the Medicare bill was passed by Congress. Congress realized that if the Amish went to court and won, then others could challenge the right to tax conflicting with the First Amendment. Congress quietly put in on page 138 a clause exempting the Old Order Amish, and any other religious sect who conscientiously objected to insurance, from paying Social Security payments, providing that sect had been in existence since December 31, 1950. The Senate approved in July, and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law on August 13, 1965.
The open question remains simply this; the first explicit references to the tithe appear in Genesis 14, where Abraham tithes to Melchizedek, and in Genesis 28, where Jacob promises to give God “a full tenth.” But where did the idea to tithe come from? Many argue Abraham and Jacob were simply following the customs of the surrounding nations. But Scripture points in a different direction. In Genesis 26:5, God says, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” In the New Testament, Jesus upholds the tithe in Matthew 23:23 (cf. Luke 11:42). He condemns the Pharisees for their tedious commitment to one part of God’s law, the tithe, while neglecting “the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” Then he states, “These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”
One of the Five Pillars of Islam, zakat is a religious obligation for all Muslims who meet the necessary criteria of wealth. This too is not a charitable contribution, but is considered to be an obligatory tax or alms. The payment and disputes on zakat have also been controversial in the history of Islam. The zakat is based on income and the value of all of one’s possessions or property. It has been traditionally set at 2.5% above a minimum amount known as nisab, which has also been greatly debated.
In Judaeo-Christianity, the “tithe” was a one tenth of annual produce or earnings, formerly taken as a tax for the support of the church and clergy in Christianity. The question is, does exceeding the level prescribed as a “tithe” violate the First Amendment? If true, then any income tax imposed beyond 10% would violate the First Amendment. Since the Ten Commandments also prohibits coveting anything that belonged to a neighbor including his wife or property, it would appear that Socialism championed by Karl Marx violates the First Amendment and any tax should not exceed 10%. Hence, progressive taxation would be unconstitutional if not a flat tax. Some argue it also violates Equal Protection of the laws. The Tax at the time of Jesus’s statement of give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, was less than 5%.

Historically during the Roman Republic, the tax imposed was 1%. During time of war, the taxes would rise to 3%. Ever since Karl Marx, who said religion is the opium of the masses, politicians have loved Marxism and used it to exploit the people to the point governments are averaging now 40% of the entire economy. They have outpaced all other businesses beating the bankers and multinational corporations. They have become the 800 pound gorilla in the corner of the room nobody notices is even there. Politicians always preach against the “rich” which increases the wealth of government. As the IRS commented: “We don’t ask people their race or religion when we administer the tax laws. People have no right to use their religion as an excuse not to pay taxes.” This is obviously the spirit of Karl Marx.
The Conflict of Law – USA/England v Europe
Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law
Re-Posted Apr 5, 2017 by Martin Armstrong
COMMENT: I believe you are wrong about the meaning of natural born citizen in you blog Does it Matter If You Are Born Outside USA to be President? You are a natural born citizen only if BOTH parents are citizens.
REPLY: The site you refer to notes the definition which comes from Emer de Vattel (1714 – 1767) who was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat. Those who were trying to make arguments against Obama were relying upon Vattel because it suited their desired result. Vattel’s definition was in his 1758 “the Law of Nations”:
Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
This is all fine and good. However, there is a conflict of law between the English “Common Law” and the law of Continental Europe. This is taught in the very first semester of law. Emer de Vattel was NOT any real influence in establishing the US Constitution. That distinction goes to William Blackstone (1723-1780). Blackstone wrote the Commentaries On The Laws Of England. This is what the framers of the Constitution relied upon for here is the interpretation that the Supreme Court will turn to – Blackstone not Vattel.
Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62.
…
When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
Those who relied upon Vattel to support their argument that Obama was not a natural born citizen simply were looking for someone to agree with them. Then McCain would not qualify either or anyone born to an ambassador while posted overseas or a child of someone in the military stationed overseas. Even in the tax code, Canadians with one single American parent born in Canada were all being sent notices from the IRS that they owed taxes in Washington because they were citizens. I had a friend in Switzerland who married an American girl and they had a son. When he was 13, they took him to the bank to open his first account. The bank refused to allow the child to open an account because he was an American and they would have to report under FATCA to the USA everything he did.
The definition is clearly different from that of Continental Europe. You could have applied for an EU passport even as an American if your grandfather was born in Europe. If your grandmother was born there instead of your grandfather, you were not eligible. The right to citizenship only followed the male line – not the mother.
There is a huge conflict of laws between USA/UK and that of European which is based upon Canon Law from the Catholic Church. Under the Common Law (USA/UK), the only privilege is that a wife cannot testify against her husband. They can force your children to testify against you. Under Continental Law, nobody in your family can testify against you even a brother or sister-in-law – NOBODY. There are those who argue it is time to change that as well
How to Fix Government in 30 days or less & Why do Smart People Avoid Government
Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption
Re-Posted Apr 4, 2017 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: You once said you could fix the mess in 30 days or less but they would assassinate you. How can you ever make our politicians responsible? My second question is, why are the really smart people not running government?
KW
ANSWER: The term limits are mandatory, but you have to cut off the incentive as well. No pension or salary after one term. People want to run for Congress and you are taken care of for life if you served even just one day. As for taking a cabinet position like Secretary of the Treasury, well you have to sell all your stock in whatever bank you are leaving and because you MUST do this, you get to sell everything tax free. They have rules to exempt themselves from everything.
Eliminate all special perks. Social Security should be for all as should the healthcare. Why should they get benefits we cannot even buy? If you limit the terms to one-time-and-out, eliminate pensions, and you subject everyone to the same benefits even while in office, then you will see things shape up. Drug Companies lobby the most. Politicians need money for re-election. If you make it one-term-and-out, you eliminate the lobbying since there is no re-election and you subject them to the same healthcare we have. Then they will not vote for things that will deprive themselves.
This is basic human nature.
As to why really smart people are not in government? That is simple. Knowledge comes from ONLY experience. I was asked if I would take the position as Chief Economic Advisor in the Bush, Jr. White House. I laughed. First, I had a real company. I could not put that in some blind trust. Then, could you image a confirmation hearing in the Senate? I would have been accused by the Democrats or helping the Japanese and German auto manufactures against GM. They would have had a field day turning that into some sort of treason. On top of that, the only way to gain experience is doing something and that means we must make mistakes in order to learn. Do you keep putting your wet finger in a light socket assuming one time you will not get socked if you just keep it up?
Nobody I know who would be qualified to do anything in banking or the economy would EVER take such a job. Who needs that sort of magnification of every aspect of your entire life? There are only two types of people who will take such jobs. Either you do it for the perks, or you do it because you want to be remembered. You are better off with someone like Trump on that score for he cannot be bribed with money. They either have it and do it for the ego or they do it to get money and status like the Clintons. There really seems to be no in between these days.
Susan Rice Confirms Her “Unmasking Requests” Were for President Obama’s Daily Briefing (PDB)…
With a general set of narrative ‘talking points’ in hand President Obama’s Former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared this morning on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell. This is the ‘We-Have-To-Respond-phase‘, which necessitates the optic.
Andrea Mitchell is considered a trustworthy ally of the Clinton/Obama political networks; as such, it is not a surprise to see Mitchell selected as the interviewer. Mitchell’s use of wording carefully guides Susan Rice through the narrow path of self-incrimination by providing plausible deniability for verbal missteps.
You already know the routine. MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice. Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas) The full interview is below:
However, that said, there are some interesting aspects to the interview:
Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works. I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”
[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and asses it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB). This was a previous question now answered.
Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:
[…] But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.
In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.
By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)
If you know how concentric circle political safety is constructed, you will notice that Susan Rice is now hugging the security of the Presidency. No space. To take Rice down, means to take down President Obama – safe play on her part.
Reverse the safety. No-one in media or congress is going to allow President Obama to be taken down; ergo, everyone will protect Susan Rice. They have no choice.
[Also note how when shifting from rehearsed talking point (script) to cognitive explanation of Rices’ point , the noun shifts from “U.S. Person” to “U.S. Official”.]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and asses it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
It’s subtle (like a Freudian slip), but Rice accidentally outlines her filter, her psychological trigger, for when to request the unmasking. She’s looking for the politics behind the intelligence. She’s looking for “U.S. Officials” in masked intelligence reports.
Mrs. Rice then follows up with a “hypothetical example” that is ridiculous as she describes. The example provided (a sketchy dude in mom’s basement) would NEVER reach the level of PDB; it would be pre-filtered, researched and reviewed for value. The PDB NEVER contains such banal information as Rice describes.
The interview goes much further. There is a lot of news in this interview. There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.
Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB. Remember, Rice considers the PDB intel community to be very specific: James Clapper (DNI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers). And she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review….
.
.
House Intel Panel Asks Susan Rice To Testify
If former National Security Advisor Susan Rice though she could get away from the current furore over the Trump “unmasking” scandal with just one MSNBC interview in which Andrea Mitchell did not even ask her why she lied two weeks ago to PBS, she will be disappointed as moments ago Dow Jones reported that the House Intelligence Panel has asked Susan Rice to testify, supposedly under oath.
- HOUSE INTELLIGENCE PANEL ASKS SUSAN RICE TO TESTIFY, DJ SAYS
The next question on everyone’s lips: will she plead the Fifth?
As a reminder, earlier in the day, the MSNBC anchor asked Susan Rice if she would testify before congress as Rand Paul requested, Rice responded by changing the subject to Russia.
“Rand Paul is suggesting that you be subpoenaed to testify. Would you be willing to go to Capitol Hill?” Mitchell aske
“You know, Andrea, let’s, let’s… see what comes,” she said. “Umm, I’m not going, ahh, you know, sit here and prejudge, but what I will say is that the investigations that are underway as to the Russian involvement in our electoral process are very important and they’re very serious. Every American ought to have an interest in those investigations going wherever the evidence indicates they should.”
Her decision may have been made for her
Obamagate = the new Watergate? Confidence in Gov’t & Press to Decline further
Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption
Re-Posted Apr 4, 2017 by Martin Armstrong
Things are going to get interesting. Of course mainstream media will say this brewing scandal is fake news. Nevertheless, my sources have been talking about this for months now. The Daily Caller now is reporting that former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova is talking saying that Susan Rice ordered the spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of all legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president. This is likely to be a new Watergate and it seems to fit with our computer forecasts and (1) 2015.75 was the peak in government and from that point onward, it would be all downhill. Yet (2), that the Democratic Party appears to have reached the tipping point. They lost more than 1,000 seats nationwide. They knew they were in serious trouble and thus unleashed the NSA head to go after Trump pretending this had to do with Russians. This is why it may have been the reason Clapper resigned rather than work for Trump.
Joseph diGenova told the Daily Caller: “What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals.”
This is going to get real nasty going forward. You can easily see that the combined Senate-House seats as a percentage reflect that the Democrats are in a serious downward spiral. Since the Great Depression, the Democrats have been making lower highs and lower lows. That is the definition of a bear market. This is why we are looking at Obamagate unfolding – desperate times call for desperate measures.
Since the Republicans have effectively been taken-over by an outsider, even their politics has not been as usual. Things are going to change in a very big way moving forward and this scandal is just feeding into the trend. What this will expose is how corrupt the press is as they desperately try to hide the truth and defend the Democrats at all costs.
Tucker Carlson: ‘Our Laws Provide No Serious Protection From Being Spied Upon for Political Reasons’
Tucker Carlson tackled the subject of Susan Rice and privacy this evening — drawing a red line in the sand — proclaiming that ‘our laws provided no serious protections from being spied on for political reasons.’
Can anyone make an argument proving this to be a false statement?
All too often, lazy thinkers conclude that it is the right of government to spy on its citizens. Perhaps that is the case in Saudi Arabia or Canada, but it’s not supposed to be that way here. Either the promotional propaganda that lauds America’s democracy as being the ideal for representative forms of government are true or they aren’t. Providing the latter prevails, as it is now, no one will ever believe in the dream that was democracy — thanks to a cadre of corrupt mountebanks who’ve abused the goodwill of the American people and its systems for purposes of self-aggrandizement and a prevailing bias that wantonly eschews the liberty of its citizens — superseded only by a craven and insatiable appetite for power.
Content originally published at iBankCoin.co
In Aggressive Push, Trump Seeks Friday Passage Of Revised Healthcare Bill
Will second time be the charm for Trump?
Just over a week after the Republicans’ embarrassing failure to repeal Obamacare as a result of infighting with both conservative and moderate factions, on Monday White House officials led by the vice president met the same opposing Republicans in the House of Representatives, in an aggressive effort to revive the passage of the Republican Obamacare deal, potentially voting as soon as the end of the this week.
As Reported by Reuters and other newswires, members of the Trump administration led by Vice President Mike Pence, invited a group of moderate Republicans known as the “Tuesday Group” to the White House. Pence then went to Capitol Hill to meet the Freedom Caucus, who have recently clashed with Trump over their insistence to block the bill in its current format. The revised deal as presented by Pence had two key components:
- Granting a waver to States from some, if not all, Obamacare insurance rules including the minimum benefits, the amount of medical expenses that insurers have to cover, and the rule preventing insurers from charging higher rates to sick people, per Axios.
- A $115 billion “stability fund” for the states would be narrowed to be spent specifically on high-risk pools, which many Republicans think is a better way to cover people with pre-existing conditions.
The Freedom caucus had a favorable first reaction: Pence and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus laid out the administration’s revised healthcare plan during a 40-minute meeting with Freedom Caucus members, said Congressman Mark Meadows, the leader of the conservative group. Meadows said he was “intrigued” by the new plan, which would allow states to opt out of some of Obamacare’s mandates, possibly by obtaining waivers.
“We’re encouraged … but would certainly need a whole lot more information before we can take any action either in support or in opposition,” Meadows told reporters. He expected to see a detailed draft of the proposal within 24 hours, he said.
Meanwhile, the moderates also were pleasantly surprised: in an earlier meeting with the moderate Tuesday Group, Pence said the new plan would preserve Obamacare’s essential health benefits clause, or services and care that insurers must cover, but states could apply for a waiver if they could show it would improve coverage and reduce costs, according to Collins. Trump aides also discussed directing funds from the $115 billion stability fund for states into high-risk pools for people with pre-existing health conditions to better ensure insurance premiums come down in cost.
What is most notable about the recent attempt to reach out is the timing: the White House would like to see a revised bill come up for a vote as early as week’s end, before the House breaks for a spring recess, and the text of the new proposal could be ready some time on Tuesday, lawmakers said.
“It was clear the president would be very happy come Friday to have this passed,” said U.S. Representative Chris Collins, a member of the Tuesday Group and a Trump ally and added that “It’s an acknowledgement that they were chasing votes with the Freedom Caucus and the Far Right and then ended up losing votes with those of us who are typically the most reliable votes.”
The clincher may have been Trump’s weekend golf game with Rand Paul: after golfing with the president on Sunday, Reuters reports that the Republican Senator, a sharp critic of the Republicans’ previous healthcare bill, also expressed renewed hope the healthcare bill could be revised in a way that picked up support from the conservative and moderate factions of the Republican Party.
Paul told reporters he was “very optimistic that we are getting closer and closer to an agreement repealing Obamacare.”
“This could move fairly quickly,” Collins said.
If so, it would provide a much needed victory for Trump whose series of political missteps in recent weeks have seen his approval rating tumble even with Republicans, dropping to the lowest on record for a new president according to various polls.










