Trump Vows To Make Healthcare An Issue After McConnell Nixes Repeal Effort

President Trump surprised many people with his pivot to health care last week. Now it seems that Senate Republicans were just as surprised as the rest of the country. Now Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is saying definitively that the GOP is not ready to move ahead with another attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Speaking with reporters on Tuesday, McConnell said, “We had a good conversation yesterday afternoon and I pointed out to him [Trump] the Senate Republicans’ view on dealing with comprehensive health care reform with a Democratic House of Representatives.”

“I was fine with Sen. Alexander and Sen. Grassley working on prescription drug pricing and other issues that are not a comprehensive effort to revisit the issue that we had the opportunity to address in the last Congress and were unable to do so,” McConnell said. “I made clear to him that we were not going to be doing that in the Senate.”

Health care reemerged as a campaign issue last week when the Trump Administration advocated that judges in a lawsuit should strike down the entire law. On April 1, President Trump announced that Republicans were “developing a really great HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) & deductibles than ObamaCare.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1112900816371900418

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1112903454941474817

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1112906931868520452

After the conversation with McConnell, the president tweeted this morning that he never intended to hold a healthcare vote before the election. Mr. Trump reiterated his belief that healthcare, an issue on which the Democrats usually hold an advantage, would be a “great issue” for Republicans.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1113432687757484032

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1113435291472277509

The Republican reversal leads to several questions. The most obvious is whether there was any communication between Republican leaders in the healthcare pivot or whether Mr. Trump merely tweeted an off-the-cuff remark that shifted the entire strategic planning of the Republican 2020 effort. It seems likely that the GOP reacted to an unplanned announcement by Mr. Trump.

A second question is how the GOP can co-opt the issue of health care from the Democrats. As I noted last week, the previous Republican effort at repeal succeeded in shifting public opinion from favoring repeal of the Affordable Care Act to an all-time high level of approval of the law. Unless Republicans can coordinate a strong message that calms voter fears about losing coverage, the health care issue is more likely to be beneficial to Democrats.

Third, there is apparently no change in the Trump Administration’s position that courts should strike down the ACA. Are Republicans planning for the possibility that this ruling could come in the runup to the election? Do they have a plan to take advantage of the opportunity to pass a market-based healthcare reform?

Regardless of the questions and current lack of organization and planning, President Trump apparently intends to continue hammering away on healthcare. At the National Republican Congressional Committee’s annual spring dinner last night, Trump said, “We blew it the last time, man I was fed a bill of goods,” but added “we can’t run away” from healthcare or “we’ll lose.”

The back-and-forth on healthcare is reminiscent of the Keystone Kops with positions being reversed at a head-spinning rate. With Democrats in control of the House, there was never any chance that Obamacare could be repealed before the election, but President Trump has handed Nancy Pelosi an issue with which to hammer Republican candidates next year.

Originally published on The Resurgent

BREAKING: NC GOP Chair Indicted For Fraud

Charlotte’s WBTV reports that former congressman and current chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party has been indicted on charges of directing illegal campaign contributions to North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey in an attempt to bribe him. Greg Lindbergh, a Durham businessman and two of Lindbergh’s associates were also indicted.

The indictment, based on an investigation which has been ongoing since at least August 2018, alleges that the contributions were made “in exchange for the removal of NCDOI’s Senior Deputy Commissioner, who was responsible for overseeing regulation and the periodic examination of ” a company owned by Lindbergh. Causey was working with federal authorities and was charged in the indictment. WBTV previously reported that Causey made secret recordings of a meeting with Hayes, Lindbergh, and another person.

NCGOP Executive Director Dallas Woodhouse  confirmed to WBTV last year that the state Republican Party had made a $240,000 payment to Causey’s campaign but said that the donation was legal. The $240,000 was a portion of a donation to the state party that was made by Lindbergh.

The four men under indictment are charged with conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud and bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds and aiding and abetting. Hayes is also charged with three counts of making false statements to the FBI.

The North Carolina GOP has been saddled with accusations of voter fraud relating to the 2018 election of Mark Harris. The evidence of fraudulent absentee ballots was so overwhelming that the state board of elections has called for a new election.

The Republican scandals in the Tar Heel State have serious implications for the national party. North Carolina has become something of a swing state. Barack Obama won North Carolina in 2008 while Donald Trump carried the state by only four points in 2016.

The scandal may aid Democrats in their quest to capture the Senate as well. Thom Tillis, one of the state’s two Republican senators, is up for reelection next year. Tillis has served only one term after defeating Democrat Kay Hagan in the Republican wave of 2014.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Hotel Mumbai Review

Sometimes the most riveting stories are the ones from real life. True tales of courage and survival can sometimes rival anything that Hollywood screenwriters can cook up. That’s the case with Hotel Mumbai, the new thriller based on the real-life terrorist attack on the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai in November 2008.

Hotel Mumbai was lost in the shuffle between the pro-life drama, Unplanned, the horror movie, Us, and a bevy of superhero flicks. Until I started looking for a movie to see, I hadn’t even heard of Hotel Mumbai.

The movie is the gripping tale of how 10 Islamic terrorists from Pakistan attacked 12 sites in the Indian city of Mumbai. The terrorists eventually penetrated the luxury hotel and terrorized the staff and guests until Indian security forces were able to respond. The terrorist assault lasted three days, during which time the occupants of the hotel were forced to fend for themselves.

The movie follows several guests, staff members, policemen, and the terrorists through the attack. For the most part, the gunmen are depicted as remorseless killing machines who are repeatedly instructed by their leader in Pakistan that they should kill without mercy. And kill they did. The combined death toll from the attacks was 166 people with more than 300 wounded.

Although the terrorists were heartless and were depicted as such, there are scenes towards the end of the movie in which one of the murderers breaks the façade to reveal that some traces of humanity have been left. The effect is to humanize the murderers enough for the viewer to fully sense the tragedy that these men too left behind lives that could have been lived more fully and had loved ones to mourn their loss. In the end, the real villain was the unseen imam who turned what a policeman called “just boys” into brainwashed killing machines.

To balance the cold, calculated brutality of the terrorists, Hotel Mumbai depicts the hotel workers and guests who fought to survive. There are moments of courage, nobility, and love as well as fear, cowardice, and stupidity. These are the understandable reactions of ordinary people who are suddenly faced with extraordinary evil.

The movie, which is rated R, is fast-paced and gritty. There is almost nonstop violence and it is depicted in a realistically bloody manner. This is not a movie for children or the faint of heart. The movie is also filmed in several languages so there are subtitles. The majority of the dialogue is English, however, so the reading is not unduly burdensome.

It did keep my heart pounding, however. The action onscreen was riveting and the characters, aside from the terrorists, were very sympathetic. What made the movie even more intense was the knowledge that this really happened to real people. Hotel Mumbai is somewhat reminiscent of No Escape, the 2015 Owen Wilson movie in which an American family is caught in the midst of a third-world coup, but the historical aspects of Mumbai make it worth watching, even if you’ve seen the earlier terrorists-in-a-hotel film.

As I watched, Hotel Mumbai also reminded me of how fortunate we are in the United States. We have occasional active-shooter killing sprees but we don’t have organized terror attacks by well-trained gunmen acting in teams. In the event that there is an attack of some sort, we also have police tactical units in most major cities. In Mumbai, the nearest SWAT team had to be deployed from Delhi, about eight hours away. Despite the problems that we have on our border, our neighboring countries aren’t filled with people of a hostile religion who want to kill us just for the sake of killing.

Nevertheless, the threat is real, even here. As a frequent traveler, the thought of being trapped in a hotel room with gun-toting terrorists roaming the halls and no way out is chilling. So is the thought that any airport, train station, or shopping mall could become a shooting gallery to a determined terrorist. If spree-killers can inflict large numbers of deaths in this country, so could a jihadist. The spree might not continue for three days but it would be very bloody and very difficult to defend against.

Hotel Mumbai is the best new movie that you never heard of. It doesn’t have big name actors, superheroes, mind-numbing special effects, or exotic fight scenes, but it does have heart and intensity. This true story of survival and sacrifice against unflinching evil is one that needs to be told.

Originally published on The Resurgent

You Can See “Unplanned” In Theaters, But You Won’t See Its Ads On Most TV Channels

The new pro-life movie, “Unplanned,” scored big points at the box office on its opening weekend. The story of Planned Parenthood executive-turned-pro-life activist, Abby Johnson, earned more than $6.1 million on its opening weekend, enough to rank fourth in gross revenues. The strong performance was despite many networks refusing to run ads for the socially conservative film.

The creators of “Unplanned” told The Hollywood Reporter that they tried to buy advertising from a number of cable networks, but few channels other than Fox News and the Christian Broadcast Network would accept the ads. Among the networks that refused to air commercials for the move were Lifetime, the Travel Channel, Cooking Channel, HGTV, Food Network, the Hallmark Channel and USA Network.

“We were looking to spend money, but they didn't want to get involved,” John Sullivan, one of the film’s producers, said.

“Most of the networks didn't go into detail beyond citing the subject matter of the film and that they didn't want to get into politics. But we don't believe we're in the political category,” Joe Knopp, another producer added, despite the fact that the film was screened at CPAC.

Several networks, including Lifetime, cited the “sensitive nature of the film” in refusing the ads. Up TV, a family-friendly network, and some Christian radio stations cited the film’s R-rating in denying the ads. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) gave the film an R-rating in February due to “some disturbing/bloody images” in a scene that uses a computer-generated image of a sonogram to simulate an abortion, noted CNS News. The film’s marketers pointed out that Lifetime, which is owned by A&E, a joint venture of Hearst Communications and Disney, previously promoted an interview with Scarlet Johansson in which the actress promoted Planned Parenthood.

Despite being handicapped by the lack of television advertising, “Unplanned” did extremely well in its opening weekend. The movie finished the weekend in fourth place after “Dumbo,” “Us,” and “Captain Marvel,” per Box Office Mojo. When the fact that “Unplanned” was shown on only 1,059 screens is taken into account, its revenue per screen outperformed “Captain Marvel,” which was released on March 8.

“We are thrilled, gratified and humbled,” co-directors Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelma said in a statement. “We are so pleased that the American people have responded with such an enormous outpouring of support at the box office. It humbles us and we look forward to seeing what happens in the weeks ahead.”

The financial success of “Unplanned” is largely due to Glenn Beck, who actively promoted the movie, and MyPillow founder, Mike Lindell, who was both an investor and promoter. The CPAC screening sparked word-of-mouth and social media recommendations by conservative activists.

The movie also may have benefitted from a controversy over the weekend in which Twitter suspended the account for “Unplanned.” Twitter told the Daily Caller that the account was “mistakenly caught in our automated systems for ban evasion.” The account was ultimately reinstated, but the spat may have inspired some conservatives to get out and go see the movie.

Pure Flix, the production company for “Unplanned,” has also produced such films as “God’s Not Dead,” “Mom’s Night Out,” and “The Case For Christ” as well as a number of movies about Biblical characters. The company also operates an on-demand video streaming service and offers a free home school curriculum.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Cuts To Central American Aid May Spark More Illegal Immigration

President Trump announced over the weekend that his administration will cut aid to three countries that White House staffers said were complicit in sending illegal immigrants to the United States. While the move will certainly be popular among the president’s base, it may prove to have an adverse effect on the problem at the southern border.

Despite a now-infamous chyron from Fox News announcing that the Trump Administration was cutting aid to “three Mexican countries,” the cuts were actually applied to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras but not to Mexico. The three Latin American countries are the source of many of the refugees that have joined migrant caravans seeking to enter the United States. As with many things Trump, there is both good and bad to what we know about the decision.

As a fiscal conservative who believes that the mounting national debt is the worst crisis that we currently face, I applaud almost any curbs to federal spending. The truth, however, is that these cuts are insignificant. The Wall Street Journal notes that the Trump Administration has not specified how much money would be cut, but points out that aid to the three countries amounts to between $500 million and $750 million each. In contrast, several countries in the Middle East and Africa receive more than $1 billion each and the combined amount of aid to all three nations is less than what President Trump has proposed to spend on his wall project.

Per the Journal, the State Department announced on Saturday that it had ended funding for the countries that was appropriated in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, but there was no mention of fiscal year 2019. The White House requested less than $400 million for the three countries in its 2020 budget proposal and pledged $5.8 billion in aid and public and private investment to strengthen economic development in Central America last December. The reversal leaves open the question of whether the policy decision was made on the spur of the moment by President Trump.

The Journal also notes that the White House did not explain how President Trump had the authority to withhold foreign aid payments that were lawfully appropriated by Congress. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 limited the president’s authority to impound appropriated funds by requiring that Congress vote to rescind funds that the president does not want to spend. If both the House and Senate do not vote to rescind the money within 45 days of continuous session, the money must be made available to the program for which it was appropriated. Historically, Congress has ignored most rescission requests and the Democrats in the House are unlikely to agree to the president’s request.

The president’s action also does not take into account the Law of Unintended Consequences. Aid to Central America was increased by the Obama Administration after a surge of unaccompanied minors arrived at the southern border in 2014. At the time, the Obama Administration requested $1 billion for a variety of programs that included anti-poverty, security and anti-crime, and anti-corruption initiatives. As US aid increased, the number of illegal border crossings from Latin America fell to its lowest level in decades, reaching a 45-year low in 2017.

Since 2016, the Trump Administration has reduced aid to Central America and the result has been a corresponding increase in illegal immigration. After several court rulings that make it more difficult to detain asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants with children, the number of arrests of family members on the southern border reached a record high in September 2018. In February, the total number of arrests reached a 10-year monthly high. Although the number of illegal border crossings remains low by historical standards, the increases in recent months may be part of a trend toward more illegal immigration under President Trump.

The Trump Administration is caught in cross-purposes with the cuts to foreign aid. While the cuts give President Trump the opportunity to look tough, they will likely exacerbate the problem of illegal immigration. It stands to reason that when money given to poverty-stricken countries for security and economic development is removed that their economic and political stability will get worse. This will create more refugees seeking to both escape political violence and find economic opportunity by immigrating to the United States.

While I am in favor of across-the-board cuts to the federal budget in general, if President Trump wants to slow illegal immigration, foreign aid to Central America seems to be money that has been well spent in terms of slowing the flow of migrants. Eliminating the aid may trigger a new surge of migrant caravans and contribute to what President Trump already considers to be a national emergency on the southern border.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Thoughts On Church Searching

Some things about moving are easy. Boxing and unboxing your belongings is pretty straightforward. If your relocation is for work, then you already have a job to go to. Schools for the kids are based on where you live so you just have to enroll them and drop them off. Other things are not so simple, however. My experience had been that finding good doctors and a good church are two of the most difficult aspects of a relocation.

We moved to a different state a year ago this month. Twelve months after the move, we are still looking for a church home.

Part of the problem is the sheer number of churches in our rural Georgia county located near a small (by Texas standards) city. I can’t find a reliable comprehensive listing of churches in our county, but one online source lists 48. There are almost certainly more than that, but even that number increases when churches across the nearby county line that are still within a 20-minute drive are considered.

The large number of churches presents a problem in two ways. First, it is difficult to visit so many churches without getting confused and overwhelmed. Second, the high number of churches per capita means that most of the churches are very small and have limited resources.

The number of possible churches can be culled if we focus on certain denominations. I was raised as a Southern Baptist but we have also been members at a couple of Methodist churches. My family is comfortable with both branches of the faith. Additionally, we have attended some charismatic denominations with friends. It’s a matter of taste, but charismatic churches tend to be a little too “energetic” for me. Still, we’ve tried a couple of them as well.

In my view, no one denomination has a lock on the truth, but going to a church of a certain denomination is like going to a chain restaurant in that you have a pretty good idea of what you’re going to get. If you walk into a McDonald’s, the decor may be different from a franchise somewhere else and there may be different faces and accents, but you’re going to get a McDonald’s burger and their famous fries.

The most important thing we look for in a church is Biblical teaching. I don’t want to waste time with a pastor that preaches feel-good theology or, worse yet, who says things that contradict the Bible.

A few years ago, we walked out of a church where the pastor was preaching a name-it-and-claim-it type sermon in which he said that all Christians needed to do to be healed was have faith and that, if you weren’t healed, your faith wasn’t strong enough. Lazarus would probably disagree. The first-century man who was raised from the dead by Jesus had probably seen Heaven and had great faith after meeting Jesus. However, eventually Lazarus went back to the grave and stayed there. Healing is not always God’s plan, no matter how great your faith is.

We also consider nondenominational churches. One of our favorites in our new home is nondenominational. The pastor is good but lacks formal theological training leading me to be concerned about doctrinal errors in his teaching.

Beyond a Biblical message, we are also looking for a church with something to offer for the whole family. We have a teen and a tween and need a church with age-appropriate programs that will keep them interested and engaged as they get older. I don’t want my children to be among those who fall away and I realize that keeping them in the faith will be easier if going to church is something that they enjoy as opposed to something that they have to be nagged to do and can’t wait until it’s over.

Finding a church with a good youth group is one of the most difficult aspects of searching for a church. Many churches have good programs for children but very few, at least in our area, have many high school kids. This is probably due in part to the fact that the churches as small, as noted previously, but the local churches seem to be largely failing older kids. With a plethora of other activities, churches seem to be getting lost in the shuffle.

I think it’s particularly important for my ninth-grade son to get plugged in, make friends, and keep growing into a Christian man. It’s my belief that churches are a good place to meet good people and, in his case, good girls. Teenage boys tend to be interested in things that draw teenage girls.

To all that, add other factors such as friendliness and convenience. Quite a few of the churches that we’ve visited seem like tight-knit social clubs rather than evangelical bodies. When we are almost totally ignored at churches we visit, it makes me think that outreach is not a priority.

As far as convenience, I have to work weekends fairly frequently so we need a church that will be comfortable for my wife to attend without me. Sunday morning inertia can be difficult to overcome when both of us are home, but it is even tougher when the woman of the house has to motivate herself and both kids to get out of bed and into church. The same problem applies to Wednesday nights after a long day of work and school.

I haven’t even touched on other aspects of church personality such as music style, formal versus casual, small versus megachurch, and whether the congregation feels comfortable with reactions such as clapping or just sits stoney-faced. I have preferences in these and other areas, but I don’t view them as critical.

So pray that God will direct us to a good church and that we will know it when we find it. I’m sure that there is one out there that He has in mind for us. Until we find it, we’ll keep praying, visiting, and searching.

And if we are searching, I’m sure that many other families are as well. If you’re a pastor or church member, be welcoming to unfamiliar faces. Make them feel at home. Even if it turns out to be another church member that you haven’t met yet, you still made someone’s day.

Along that line, churches should have a greeter to direct visitors to where they need to go so they aren’t forced to wander around aimlessly. Post your service times online so they know when to show up. If you have them fill out a visitor card, follow up with a phone call or letter telling them you’re glad they came. Better yet, send someone out to visit and find out if you can do anything for them. This also applies to longtime attendees who stop coming.

The irony is that even with a lot of available churches, many are not filling the needs of the community. Maybe this is why, as Jess Fields described earlier this week, churches in America are dying and religious “nones” are on the rise. I want to avoid that for my family.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump DOJ: Courts Should Strike Down Obamacare Entirely

It had seemed that everyone had forgotten about Obamacare, but this week the Trump Administration, apparently deciding that the president’s vindication in the Mueller report had gotten too much press, said that it believes that courts should strike down the entire Affordable Care Act. The sudden and short announcement came Monday as the Department of Justice notified the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that it supports a December ruling striking down the law.

“The Department of Justice has determined that the district court's judgment should be affirmed,” three Justice Department lawyers wrote. “The United States is not urging that any portion of the district court's judgment be reversed.”

The appeals court is currently reviewing a December ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, who said that Congress’s decision to scrap the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance meant that the entire law should be struck down. The decision was immediately appealed by a group of states defending the law led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

“The Individual Mandate ‘is so interwoven with [the ACA’s] regulations that they cannot be separated. None of them can stand,” O’Connor wrote.

The Trump Administration had previously argued that community rating and guaranteed issue of policies should be struck down, but that the rest of the law should be upheld. The two provisions benefit people with pre-existing conditions who want to buy health insurance after they become ill.

The announcement by the Justice Department comes almost two years after Republicans were unable to repeal or reform the Affordable Care Act in President Trump’s first year in office. While the health insurance law has largely withstood attempts to repeal or change it, a provision was inserted into the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that repealed the individual mandate. The tax reform law passed in December 2017.

As the lawsuit against Obamacare winds its way through the judicial system, Congress is at a stalemate on the law. Republicans promised to repeal the law but don’t have the votes to do so. Even a “skinny repeal” using a budget reconciliation requiring only 51 votes failed after several Republican senators expressed concern about coverage for pre-existing conditions. For their part, many Democrats acknowledge that Obamacare needs to be reformed. The party is united in opposition to repeal but can’t agree on how to fix the law.

In the meantime, the one effect that the Republican repeal effort has had is to make Obamacare more popular. Voters opposed the law until April 2017 when doubts about Republican bills suddenly caused a surge in popularity for the Affordable Care Act. Support for Obamacare hit an all-time high just before the 2018 elections when Reuters found that 60 percent opposed repeal.

The lower court ruling and the Trump Administration’s support for it are the equivalent of throwing a live grenade into the 2020 elections. Where health care was not a large issue, it is suddenly reemerging as a hot topic for voters and Republicans incumbents are likely to start jumping for cover.

Even though Obamacare has never been popular within the GOP, many Republican voters are among those who do support various aspects of the law. Coverage for preventive care with no out-of-pocket expenses, protections for pre-existing conditions, and coverage for dependents up to age 26 have broad support across party lines.

Regardless of its popularity, the Affordable Care Act has not achieved its purpose. The growth rate in health care spending has declined only marginally and health insurance premiums have continued to steadily increase. The law never eliminated the problem of uninsured Americans although it reduced the uninsured rate to 8.8 percent by 2018. Today, the share of Americans without adequate health insurance is essentially unchanged since 2010.

Nine years after its passage, the Affordable Care Act remains a drag on the economy and the high cost of health care is still a problem that needs to be fixed. With the parties unable to reach an agreement on how to reform the health law, the possibility that the Supreme Court could strike down Obamacare in its entirety introduces a new uncertainty into next year’s elections. The timing of the case could once again force Republican incumbents to choose between pleasing the Republican base or the majority of voters.

Originally published on The Resurgent