Phil Roe Supports Bill That Enables Medicare Fraud
Phil Roe (R-TN) represents the first congressional district in the state. He ran for Congress in 2008 on a platform of change. However, he has changed nothing about politics. Upon his entry in the race in 2008, Phil Roe harshly criticized then Representative David Davis, whom he was challenging in the congressional republican primary, for accepting donations from oil companies to his campaign. Unfortunately for Phil Roe, the facts just don’t add up. There are many factors that play a significant role in fluctuation of gasoline prices.
The first is the cost of crude oil, which makes up over two thirds of the price of gasoline, as well as the fluctuation of demand. The prices go up in the summer and down in the winter, simply because more Americans are traveling on vacations and family outings. Hurricanes, geography, and taxes can play a huge role, says CSMonitor. Phil Roe criticizing David Davis wasn’t just factually incorrect, it was blatently dishonest. If someone like me can do a simple search and discover the truth, so could someone running for Congress.
Another contributing factor in the prices of gasoline can include the changing blends of gasoline. During the summer, the ethanol blend is changed to a more expensive blend that allegedly reduces smog. This is another reason why we need to get ethonol out of our gasoline. It’s simply costing us too much money to justify, but by no means is that David Davis’ fault. There is a long list of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers who are bought and paid for by the ethanol industry.
That’s not the worst part, however. In 2008 when gas prices were on the rise, Democrats used the same talking points against the Republicans. Many Democrats, including those who were in leadership, accused Republicans of being in the pocket of big oil, with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi stating that a major contributor to the oil price hike was due to the two “oil men” in the White House, and Phil Roe went along with this bogus argument, using it to his political advantage as he decried Davis’ supposed corruption.
But hold on, what about Phil Roe’s own corruption? In 2014, Phil Roe was given $7,750 from Mountain State Health Alliance, a corporation that owners several hospitals in Eastern Tennessee and Southwestern Virginia, and then decided he would efforts rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare when he co-sponsored a bill that gutted the Recovery Audit Contract (RAC), a program that audited Medicare to route out frivilous spending and potential hospital overcharges. This is nothing short of typical Washington D.C. hypocrisy that we see all too often in our politicians. It’s no wonder our leaders have a record-low confidence level with people like Roe running the show.
We, as voters have a remedy. We must end Phil Roe’s political career now. He’s an ineffective, corrupt liar who has no place in public office. Those who hold office must learn to respect the people they claim to represent, and if they don’t, they prove their unworthiness for service.
Congressman Phil Roe, who represents Tennessee’s 1st congressional district, one of the most conservative districts in the country, has been consistently voting wrong on economic issues and voting conservative on social issues as a means to convince you and I that he is one of us. Phil Roe is not a conservative, he is is a charlatan.
Congressman Phil Roe voted to raise the debt ceiling, even though our Congress has been negligent in passing a budget for the past seven years. While keeping our country financially solvent isn’t a major priority for Roe, ensuring that we preserve the confederate flag is. Recently, Roe voted against banning the confederate flag at all Department of Veterans Affairs cemeteries in the United States, saying in part:
“The VA’s current policy, which allows the Confederate flag to be displayed on Memorial Day and Confederate Memorial Day, is appropriate for many families whose ancestors fought and died under the flag. I hope this amendment will be removed before the final version of this bill is considered.”
Someone forgot to give our congressman his history lesson: While much of Tennessee was pro-confederacy, the state was the last state to join the confederacy due to a large percentage of people who favored the Union. East Tennessee, the area he represents was against the confederacy and against slavery. The congressman also neglected to mention is his remarks that the policy would have absolutely zero impact on former confederate soldiers families living today, as there is no soldiers currently interred in the Tennessee National Cemetery. The director of the Mountain Home National Cemetery said in a piece written by the Johnson City Press:
“We have no Confederate flags flying on any flagpoles, and we do not have any confederates interred here,” Walker said. “We also have no Confederate headstones. Remember, we opened in 1903, and the confederates around here are buried at Oak Hill Cemetery.”
Here, Phil Roe gets embarrassed by the media for voting for a bill that has zero benefit on any of his constituents, he casts votes like this to distract voters from decisions on economics and foreign policy like the Syrian Train and Equip Fund. He’s voted for big government spending bills, such as HB 2685, in 2015 funded the military, which according to votesmart.org gave $600 million dollars to the Syria Train and Equip Fund and also appropriated $715 million dollars to the Iraq Train and Equip Fund. In the case of the Syrian effort, the program was a massive failure. Syrian rebels who were trained reportedly wanted to go back home, felt there weren’t enough members being trained in Jordan and Turkey where they were stationed for training before being transferred back to Syria. Another large reason the plan failed was because many Syrian fighters were focused primarily on fighting the Syrian dictator, Assad. There were also concerns about the possibility that some of these fighters could surrender their weaponry to ISIS in the face of death, and in so doing have the American people supply the Islamic State with weaponry.
Phil Roe’s bad judgment shines through as he continues to vote for un-conservative legislation that undermines our national security. Phil Roe seems to have even bigger fish to fry than our national security, as he seeks to rename the Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Sevierville, Tennessee the Dannie A. Carr Veterans Outpatient Clinic. While Dannie A. Carr fought bravely for his country in the Vietnam war, I find Phil Roe using him to hide from his political misdeeds patently offensive. Phil Roe can’t get our spending under control, nor stop our government from arming ISIS, so he spends his time scoring political points. He doesn’t care about Dannie Carr, he’s just using his blood for political gain here at home.
Its time to retire Phil Roe. He’s been not only ineffective but he has cast votes that have got us involved in foreign conflicts that we should not be involved in, and in the process taken advantage of soldiers blood for political gain. He hasn’t done anything to effectively move us toward a balanced budget, nor taking steps to protect us from ISIS. We can all hope a new congressman or congresswoman will be able to offer substantive solutions going forward. Government in Washington D.C. is broken, and if we don’t change who we send to Washington, we can’t expect anything to change.
Trump receives NRA endorsement
As you look through social media, you will see many supporters of Texas Senator Ted Cruz post about conservatism, trying to include or exclude others as being a conservative. What does it mean to be a conservative? Is Ted Cruz a conservative? How about Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Sarah Palin, and Paul Ryan? Who decides who is or is not a conservative, and how do you define it in our modern politics? In much the same way Bill Clinton redefined what it meant to be a Democrat, Donald Trump is reinventing what it means to be a conservative.
In 1992, Democrat Bill Clinton arrived on the national scene, riding a platform of welfare reform, promising to “end welfare as we know it.” This was an abandonment of Democratic tradition, in a party that had at one time been hesitant to enact any form of welfare reform. The “new democrats” focused primarily on Southern white Reagan Democrats. The result of the 1980 and 1984 elections prompted Democrats to abandon their prior position on welfare reform and free trade, saying that welfare required work, he sought to change the system. Clinton accomplished this goal, signing the landmark Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. The law required work to be a contingency of receiving welfare, and it gained bipartisan support in Congress.
Enter the year of 2016, with Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. He has proposed the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which President Bill Clinton signed into law. He wants to put a 25 percent tariff on companies who leave the United States to pursue business in countries with cheaper labor. He’s pro life, while allowing certain exceptions such as the life of the mother and for rape and incest. Many conservatives want all or nothing, saying if they can’t have a candidate that is totally in line with everything they believe in, they’ll take their marbles and go home, and this is a toxic path. The goal of a president is to move the ball forward for their cause, and if we can advance our agenda of freedom with a Trump presidency, then we should embrace these changes Donald Trump wants to make to our party. Being free trade doesn’t mean you get ripped off nationally by countries who seek to take advantage of you, nor are you giving in on principle when you make an exception for rape and incest and outlaw abortions in other circumstances.
Although Bill Clinton campaigned as a new kind of Democrat, he put Ruth Bater Guinsburg on the court as well as Stephen Bryer, who have aligned themselves with the left wing of the judiciary. We’re now sitting on a 4-4 tie between liberals and conservatives, and sometimes Justice Kennedy doesn’t side with conservatives especially as it pertains to a general right to life, although he has upheld some abortion restrictions in the past.. Regardless, if we allow Hillary Clinton to occupy the White House, she will likely not only appoint Supreme Court justices who uphold Roe vs Wade, she will use the court to overturn gun rights, as she has said recently that the Supreme Court is wrong on gun rights.
Hillary Clinton is not a new democrat. She is a Barack Obama democrat, one who isn’t pragmatic, but ideological in every sense of the word. She would make George W. Bush look moderate on foreign policy and make Barack Obama actually seem reasonable on the issue of privacy and the NSA. Right now, Donald Trump is the only individual standing between freedom and the progressive agenda Hillary embraces. He’s the only person that stands between an ever increasing discrepancy between how other nations treat us on trade and how we treat them. Hillary’s unwillingness to touch NAFTA and reform it, despite her rhetoric in the democratic primary as she fends off Bernie Sanders. She, at her core is a believer in free trade, not a believer in fair trade. She believes trade should have meaningless guidelines and if another country like China wants to rip us off with their currency manipulation, then as free-traders we must sit back, tolerate that and hope for the best. This is not the solution for America. We must take on China, fight them like hell so that we don’t end up paying the price at the end of the day in jobs and economic prosperity.
Donald Trump is a different kind of Republican, one that will have strong appeal to working class voters because his policies will rebuild the middle class that has been decimated by progressive policies. By embracing economic nationalism and focusing on making America great again, Trump has a chance to win states that are normally not in play for traditional Republican nominees. Nothing can stop us as long as we remain united as a party. We can and will defeat Hillary Clinton in November together.
With Donald Trump’s resounding win last night in Pensylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland and Delaware, Trump captured over 60 percent in four out of five of these races. This signals the end of the Ted Cruz campaign, with him only winning 3 Delaware delegates. He has reached the point where he cannot reach a majority of the delegates on the first ballot, and because of this he must now deny Trump 1237 so he can win on a potential second ballot.
Cruz’s problems are more deep than just his losses last night, a new FOX poll has Trump leading Cruz by eight percentage points in Indiana, a mathematical must-win state for Senator Cruz. Analysts say that if Trump were to win Indiana, it would likely mean that Trump has the nomination at the end of this fight. He currently sits at 954 pledged delegates with Cruz at 562 delegates. There are a total of 502 delegates left outstanding. This count doesn’t include the 39 unbound delegates from Pensylvania who are likely to vote for Mr. Trump on the first ballot due to his resounding win on Tuesday. Only three unbound delegates who promise to vote for Cruz were elected in Pensylvania.
Mr Cruz appeared to have an ace up his sleeve today however when he chose former CEO Carly Fiorina to be his running mate, undoubtedly a play for female Republican primary voters. It’s unclear if this will have any impact in Indiana or anywhere else in the country because Carly Fiorina placed seventh place in both Iowa and New Hampshire before dropping out due to her extrordinarily awful polling numbers. We’re going to have to wait to see what kind of data we get from these states before we know for sure what the impact will be, but if the past is any indicator, it wont do much, and much of the news cycle today has been dedicated to Trump’s resounding win last night and Cruz’s desperation today.
Not only does it seem unlikely that Fiorina will help Cruz, but the move may play to Trump’s benefit. Trump has extensively campaigned as the champion of the middle class. He campaigns on bringing back jobs from China, from Mexico, from Japan and anywhere else that has been the beneficiary of outsourcing in this country. Yet Carly Fiorina as CEO of Hewitt-Packard laid off thousands of workers to other countries as the .com boom busted. I expect Donald Trump to hammer this point home in the coming days.as he campaigns in various parts of the country.
Ted Cruz needs to do something he doesn’t appear apt to do: Concede defeat. He has damaged his brand significantly with the selection of Carly Fiorina as his running mate, not only due to her failed presidential campaign but due to her failed business record. We have a nominee of the Republican party, and I call on all Republicans to unite behind Donald J. Trump this november to defeat Hillary Clinton. There isn’t anything we can’t do together.
Ethanol is heavily subsidized
Why do we pay so much for gasoline? Why is it mandated that we as consumers have ethanol in our gasoline? I have pondered the theory and compiled research, and to be honest, my findings were clear: There should be no minimum mandate, but cronyism keeps the Ethanol business alive. Established in 2007, the Renewable Fuel Standard requires a certain level of Bio fuels to be mixed in with transportation fluid in increasing amounts each year until 2022, when the total bio fuels nationwide will reach 36 billion gallons.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Congress created the renewable fuel standard (RFS) program in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and expand the nation’s renewable fuels sector while reducing reliance on imported oil. “ but according to Science Magazine the Renewable Fuel Standard causes green house emissions to increase by nearly double in 30 years, while increasing greenhouse gasses for 167 years! They claim that the emissions associated with plowing more lands for corn crop releases more greenhouse gasses into the environment. The EPA misses this point when projecting greenhouse gas reductions.
I checked with the Sierra Club, figuring if anyone would stand behind corn-based ethanol it would be them. But to my great surprise, they strongly oppose corn-based ethonal. Arguing they are unsustainable, they cite concerns in The National Research Council, and according to their report, there is great potential for environmental harm such as the pollution of rivers and other waterways as well as reduced water availability in some communities. They further argue its “time to move beyond corn.”
Another concern regarding ethanol is weather or not the corn industry can meet the demand for more and more corn-based bio fuels. Studies have shown a correlation between ethanol and crude prices due to the increasing demand on corn to fuel our vehicles. Estimates are that as crude oil prices rise, so will corn, with 40 percent of corn crop now being used for bio fuels. They argue “Within three years, demand for corn for ethanol may well exceed the traditional largest source of demand for corn –livestock feeding. If the ethanol industry expands now and in the future, it may bid up corn prices – thus tending to narrow its processing margins unless ethanol prices simultaneously go up more than corn prices.”
The ethanol business is also heavily subsidized, despite some of the subsidies being discontinued. The Bio-energy Program for Advanced Bio fuels, which makes payments to advanced bio-fuel companies to expand the production of corn oil bio-diesels. These organizations received approximately $53 million dollars in grants and loans, according to taxpayer.net. They also have the Bio-refinery Assistance Program gives out grants and loan guarantees for advanced bio-fuels and they gave out $25 million dollars between 2009-2012. They also have the Empowering Assistance Program, and the Rural Energy for America Program, totaling $9.8 million dollars in reimbursements and grants.
Beyond these grants and subsidies, they also receive big tax breaks. Starting with the Volumetric Bio-diesel Excise Tax Credit, which is given to feed-stocks like corn, and they are projected to receive $16.2 billion between 2013-2022. The second tax credit they are eligible for is the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit, which allows for up to a 30 percent tax break, and this applies to businesses such as gas, those installing bio-fuels, or blending pumps that have E85. From 2013-2022, they are slated to cost taxpayers $220 million, according to taxpayer.net.
But the problem’s don’t end there – not by a long shot. What about the effects on your vehicle’s engine beyond just gas mileage? There is evidence it does do harm. USA Today is reporting that many warranties from automakers will be void if a customer should use E15 gasoline. AAA has also chimed in, claiming that E15 could be unsafe for vehicles and they advocate more investigation into the impact of E15 gasoline. “It is clear that millions of Americans are unfamiliar with E15, which means there is a strong possibility that many motorists may improperly fill up using this gasoline and damage their vehicle,” said AAA President & CEO Robert Darbelnet. “Bringing E15 to the market without adequate safeguards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers.” It doesn’t appear that many vehicles are prepared to fuel up with these bio-fuels, as the vast majority of vehicles do not have EPA approval for E15.
With the risks of environmental pollution, vehicle breakdowns, and higher food costs, some don’t see why we should continue to subsidize the corn industry. It appears the corn industry is in a battle by themselves, and the empirical evidence shows that they are losing. People deserve better.
Hillary Clinton is dangerous
Hillary Clinton’s first 100 days in office will be a very tramatic time for America. She would support and expand President Obama’s unconstitutional immigration executive action, while fast tracking naturalization. She will ensure that the eleven million people living in this country illegally can and do stay, passing “comprehensive immigration reform,” known as amnesty. It’s likely that if she were to become president, republicans would lose the senate and have a narrowed majority in the House of Representatives. She will use her electoral mandate to get some Republican support.
Secondly, she will appoint a extreme liberal to the Supreme Court, likely ideologically in tune with Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. They ultimately would overturn the Heller decision, the Hobby lobby decision as well as the decision overturning much of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, they would likely rule against conservatives in the event any state should pass restriction on abortion or Planned Parenthood. We could even see abortion clinics at Walmart, just like we do hair salons. It would be so easy to get an abortion, because the supreme court would find that not only is it a right in the sense that a woman has the option to have one, they would find that a woman has the right to get the RESOURCES for an abortion, which would ultimately come from general revenue funds. To pay for this, democrats would abolish tax-exempt stratus from charities across the board, and instead tax their revenues at the regular rates, which could top 40 percent.
Third, she will move for Cap and trade, and institute a tax on vehicles that the government deems “inefficiant.” This would include millions of vans, buses, SUVs, box trucks, semi trucks, and millions of other vehicles. In other words, unless you drive a Honda Civic hybrid, you’re screwed. Of course, if you work for the government and use your vehicle in the commission of government services, you’ll be exempt from these rules. But hey, I geuss we’re “protecting the environment,” right? Expect this tax to be at least 10 percent of your vehicle’s value, if not more, and if the data shows the tax is ineffective, President Clinton could raise the tax to 15 or 20 percent. You may or may not have the right to contest the value of your vehicle, depending on weather President Clinton puts those provisions in the legislation. But would that be a violation of due process? Nope, not according to Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court.
Fourth, she’ll be one of the biggest neoconservative presidents we’ve ever seen. She is and has been one of the biggest cheerleaders for regime change, a foreign policy that has never worked out well in the history of the United States, as it didn’t in Egypt or libya, it won’t anywhere else, unless we’re literally prepared to take over their land permanently, which isn’t something neoconservatives favor. She will be more aggressive on foreign policy than George W. Bush, in part because she agrees with the ideology and part due to her not wanting to be perceived as weak by other world leaders. Hilary Clinton will involve the United States in every foreign conflict, arguing its in our “best interest.”
Fifth, she will support the passage of “reasonable gun safety measures” that will infringe our second amendment rights. The first step in this process will be to pass “common sense background checks,” then everything else will fall into place. She will then ask congress to pass the “assault weapons ban,” and then ultimately through a blue state like California enacting a new law, her Supreme Court will find it’s unconstitutional for an individual to keep guns in their homes, and we must surrender them to our local authorities or ultimately face prosecution. She will shut down every gun shop, and outlaw the sale of bullets except to the police and the military. I predict the first offense would be a felony, punishable by no less than five years in prison.
Hillary Clinton would not be a one term president, either. With the millions of voters that will come into the country and the ones living here already being legalized, they will support her in droves because they will have bought into the Democrat’s lie that the Republican Party does not care about them or their well-being. After two terms in the White House, we face the prospect of having a potential 7-2 progressive majority, which would nullify every constitutional right we hold dear. Under Hillary Clinton, we would likely have no hope of another Republican president for at least 20 years, and by then the party would be totally different, something we as conservatives may not even recognise.
It’s up to us to stop her, and I hope you’ll join me in that effort.