TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
SCOTUS, the States, Forfeiture,
and the Eighth Amendment
by Political Editors
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
scumbag-Comey backs off legal challenge to subpoena, says he’ll testify to House in private (Washington Examiner)
.
.
.
Nice work if you can get it: Al Sharpton sells rights to his life story for $531K — to his own charity (Fox News)
.
.
.
.
Humor: scumbag/liar-nObama boasts that scumbag/liar-nObamaCare has reduced health care costs by lowering life expectancy: “Thank me for that” (The Babylon Bee)
.
.
Policy: Harvard study shows the dangers of early school enrollment (Foundation for Economic Education)
~The Patriot Post
.
Democratic Opposition to The Yemen War
Gains Momentum Ahead of Key Senate Vote
by Alex Emmons and Ryan GrimTijuana mayor says arrest caravan organizer,
vows to stop funding migrants
by Griff Jenkins .
Israel and Syria Exchange Missiles
by Aaron Kesel
{activistpost.com} ~ Tensions are rising again between Israel and Syria as the two countries have exchanged missile fire over the past 24 hours... According to The Jerusalem Post, an IDF Spokesperson confirmed that Israel’s air defense system identified a single Syrian surface-to-air missile that fell into Golan Heights after the Syrian regime stated it had downed “hostile targets” over the southern part of the country. However, the spokesperson denied that Israel had struck an Iranian base in Syria despite several reports indicating an attack had taken place against Iranian militia. Alleged video of the incident uploaded to Twitter reported by Newsweek, has been purged as Twitter suspended the account.“Air defense intercepts hostile targets over al-Kiswah and downed them,” a military source was quoted by SANA. According to numerous local reports, the downed targets that the Syrian army was talking about are Israeli missiles which were targeting positions of Iranian proxy militias in southern Syria. Saudi-owned TV station Al-Arabiya is further reporting Israeli planes attacked Iranian targets in Syria close to where the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group Hezbollah...Why China Is The Enemy America Needs
by David Marcus
{thefederalist.com} ~ For many Americans who have no memory of the Cold War, which means anyone under 35, it is difficult to view the United Sates as a just and moral superpower... Those of us longer in the tooth grew up, almost universally, with that idea. In significant ways it was the Cold War, and our antagonistic rivalry with the Soviet Union, that convinced Americans of their country’s moral superiority. To be sure, the United Sates did some bad things, but in furtherance of a fight against an “evil empire” with a vision for the world we could not tolerate. Today, we have no such rival. Or do we? The most powerful emerging superpower in the world is China. While always nominally viewed as a communist adversary, our relationship with China has never had the ferocity or high stakes that our decades-long battles with Russia did. Americans do not see China as an oppressive and dangerous regime that threatens democracy and freedom in the world. This is a mistake, and one we should quickly correct. The list of China’s crimes is long. But a few highlights put its atrocities in stark relief. Need we look any further than the million Uighurs, a Muslim minority in Western China who are currently in concentration camps? Can we hear the accounts of torture like the one below warning: it’s hard to watch without understanding that China must be a foe and not a partner? Chinese citizens lucky enough not be tortured in concentration camps are now beginning to be monitored online, their accounts scoured for social and anti-social behavior. The “well-behaved” will be awarded with perks like the ability to freely travel, the “badly behaved” punished with repressive measures. These are exactly the kind of authoritarian measures that Americans decried in the Soviet Union and that gave us our sense being the good guys. Yet that phenomenon does not seem to be occurring in regard to China... http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/30/china-is-the-enemy-america-needs/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=ab011bea45-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-ab011bea45-83771801.
Should We Move Away From
Employer-Sponsored Insurance?
by Chris Pope
{economics21.org{ ~ The battle to reform health insurance has largely concentrated on the individual market, in which only 15 million Americans are enrolled... By contrast, 158 million Americans are covered by employer-sponsored plans. The scumbag/liar-nObama administration did very little to shake up those arrangements—and the same was true of the Trump administration until last month, when it announced a proposed rule that might bring sweeping changes to this bigger market. The dominance of employer-sponsored health insurance owes much to its exemption from federal taxation, which allows employers to purchase health insurance for their staff without incurring income or payroll taxes. Because the tax exemption does not extend to the purchase of health insurance and medical services by individuals, it has put employers in charge of purchasing coverage, which has helped to inflate the cost of healthcare. Cost controls under employer-sponsored insurance tend to be unpopular, as any savings accrue to the firm, while reductions in access to care are borne by staff. Because employers must make the same plans available to all workers, who have a multitude of idiosyncratic needs and preferences, businesses tend to purchase benefit packages and networks that are broader and more expensive than price-sensitive individuals would buy for themselves. While only 9 percent of employers offer a health plan with a narrow network, 73 percent of individuals responsible for purchasing their own coverage opt for narrow network plans. These are on average 16 percent cheaper than comparable broad network plans, and are particularly popular with younger enrollees. Not only must broad network plans pay for more expensive doctors and hospitals, they have less leverage to get good deals from relatively low-cost providers. This problem is compounded for self-insured plans, which account for 61 percent of employer-sponsored insurance. Under those plans, insurers merely process claims, and pass on medical costs incurred to employers... https://economics21.org/should-we-move-away-employer-sponsored-insurance/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=theinsider&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURBMVlXTmxZakZoTm1FMyIsInQiOiJ3YThpSUdUQXMwd3JkRTlJUVwvdTZPV0xFNVVvRzhlREswdGR6S3dIaTA0aVRWSENlXC9ndzBVcGhnXC95WkxxaFZOMUFJMXJxQVwvKzI1NWhDNCtCTDBQY1c4YTZDcVNwQ0Y5amp1NmVhZzhYSEdONlZoOUJ2Y0pjTWpTSmh5dlVkd3YifQ%3D%3D
.
SCOTUS, the States, Forfeiture, and the Eighth Amendment
by Political Editors: In hearing arguments for Timbs v. Indiana, Supreme Court justices made it clear that they weren’t buying the state’s position. The issue is one on which we’ve previously written — law enforcement’s authority to use civil asset forfeiture. Specifically, are state governments bound by the Eighth Amendment, which bans the levying of excessive fines upon individuals suspected of a crime?
Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed incredulity toward the Indiana solicitor general’s argument that the state was not beholden to the Eighth Amendment. “Here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights,” an exasperated Gorsuch said. “Really? Come on, general.” Gorsuch then rather bluntly told the solicitor general that he was going to lose.
The newest member of the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, also weighed in on the issue, asking, “Isn’t it just too late in the day to argue that any of the Bill of Rights is not incorporated?”
And Justice Stephen Breyer asked the hypothetical question, “What is to happen if a state needing revenue says anyone who speeds has to forfeit the Bugatti, Mercedes, or a special Ferrari, or even a jalopy?” The solicitor general answered that there would be no problem with a state authorizing such a law, an answer that the justices clearly found problematic.
The Court is expected to issue its ruling sometime before June. In all likelihood, Indiana will lose this case. The only question is how far the justices will go in demanding that states end this abusive practice.
~The Patriot Post
Comments