Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Is Healthcare Spending a Train Wreck?

August 16, 2018

Since those paid to inform the public about our nation’s healthcare problems are profiting from our healthcare mess, they’re not going to rock the boat. That leaves the nation’s whipping boy, Gene McVay, to stand on the soapbox and take the slings and arrows. You’re welcome.

You probably don’t think much about the totality of the healthcare behemoth when you trot down to the Doctor’s Office with an ailment. Why should you? Coping with life and putting food on the table is daunting enough for the average person.

The United States spends more than $2.6 trillion on healthcare or about one fifth of our gross domestic product. Of course, that is MUCH MORE than any other country on this planet by a wide margin.

There are many reasons for our big government healthcare debacle and maybe I can expose those reasons using my training as an Intelligence Analyst at the National Security Agency. It goes beyond the mounds of regulations and laws that add costs and complexity to healthcare and create a firewall between patients and Doctors.

We pay our doctors, hospitals and other medical providers in ways that reward doing more, rather than being efficient.

Most big healthcare insurers, including Medicare, pay doctors, hospitals and other medical providers under a fee-for-service system that reimburses for each test, procedure or visit. Coupled with a medical system that is not integrated, this encourages overtreatment, including repetitive tests.

There are efforts in the federal healthcare law and among some private insurers to move payments toward a flat rate for a specific condition, such as a knee replacement, or for a patient’s entire episode of care, in order to streamline costs. Medical systems and doctors are also looking to electronic medical records as a way to improve coordination and reduce unnecessary repeated tests. Does that give you a warm fuzzy feeling? It’s 2018 and our medical records are still being chiseled on stone tablets. There is no logical reason why health records were not standardized and digitized 30 years ago! Some Stone Age hospitals still hand patients a clipboard with a stack of forms to be filled out. Those clipboards have more germs than the door handles on the inside of their restrooms. All the information they request already resides in the bowels of the hospital but finding it would be like finding your old football jersey in your attic.

As for a flat rate for specific conditions, if you saw that dollar amount you would likely go into shock and have a stroke on the spot. There is an Oklahoma surgery facility that publishes their prices. The Surgery Center of Oklahoma is a Doctor owned facility that is performing operations for less than the deductible in some cases and you know what it will cost before you go under the knife. Your insurance company will probably not pay for your operation there because there is not enough slop for them to make a killing. If a hospital charges you $100 for an aspirin that costs them a penny, there’s plenty of wiggle room for every layer of inefficiency to pocket some of your cash.

If you took the time to see how much money the big pharmaceutical companies, healthcare insurance companies, hospital conglomerates and nursing home owners donate to your Governor, Legislators and federal politicians, you might need resuscitated.

The bribes that recently resulted in prosecutions in Arkansas are not reported on campaign finance reports but the legal amount these politicians receive is a game changer. Where do you think the lobbyists get all that money? Ultimately, it comes out of our pockets when we pay $100 for an aspirin or our life savings for a nursing home stay.

I am not going to ignore the fact that we are getting older and fatter. The baby boom generation is heading into retirement with enrollment in Medicare set to grow by an average of 1.6 million people annually. Additionally, nearly half the U.S. population has one or more chronic conditions such as asthma, heart disease or diabetes, which drive up costs. Two-thirds of adults are either overweight or obese, which can also lead to chronic illness and additional medical spending. If that is not bad enough, millions of Americans are smoking and using illegal drugs as a form of self destruction.

If a cure for some illness was invented today, it would be obsolete long before it could be approved by the government bureaucracy. The path to approval would bankrupt George Soros or Bill Gates. Americans are flying to foreign countries to save their lives because our government is protecting them by denying them medical treatment. President Trump is trying to make experimental treatments available to terminally ill patients but establishment Republicans, Democrats, Judges, the corrupt media and every federal agency will fight him with all their strength. Should American’s have to go to the Congo or India for medical treatment?

One thing you can bank on, every new treatment will be more expensive than the old treatment.

The majority of people with insurance get it through their jobs. The amount employers pay toward coverage is tax deductible for the firm and tax exempt to the worker, thus encouraging more expensive health plans with richer benefits. How that coverage is designed also plays a role: Low deductibles or small office co-payments can encourage overuse of care. Increasingly, however, employers are moving toward high-deductible coverage as a way to slow premium growth and require workers to pay more toward the cost of care. In Fort Smith, business is booming at a community clinic because people with healthcare insurance can’t afford $200 copay and $6,000 deductible.

While medical journals, the Internet and talking heads on TV are saturated with health information and studies, professionals and patients find there is no broad standard for evaluating individual treatments, or how specific treatments compare with others. Even when evidence shows a treatment isn’t effective, or is potentially harmful, it can take a long time for that information to actually change how doctors practice or what patients demand. One of my friends was on a vacation in China when he had a heart attack. Guess what, people have heart attacks all over the world and receive treatment. We have been practicing medicine in America for about 500 years. In China, they have been practicing medicine for thousands of years. Chinese patients have a choice between modern medicine and traditional medicine so a nurse might be pushing a cart down the hall with pills next to potions and herbs. There are probably cures that have been known in China since Columbus discovered America that are unknown in America?

While mergers or partnerships among medical providers or insurers may improve efficiency and help drive down prices, consolidation can also have the opposite effect, allowing near-monopolies in some markets and driving up prices. Increasingly, hospitals are buying up rivals and directly employing physicians, creating larger medical systems. Unfortunately, in my opinion these conglomerates are focused on profit instead of patients. Yes, that includes the not-for-profit hospitals.

Just like schools have more librarians, bus drivers, coaches and cafeteria workers than teachers, hospitals have more administrators than Doctors.

The number of physicians in the United States grew 150 percent between 1975 and 2010, roughly in keeping with population growth, while the number of healthcare administrators increased 3,200 percent for the same time period. This is not a typo! Please don’t call me a dishonest because you are not paying attention.

Some claim the huge number of administrators is needed to keep pace with the drastic changes in healthcare delivery during that timeframe, particularly change driven by technology and by ever-more-complex regulations and laws thanks to your smiley faced politicians and bureaucrats.

The simple truth is that the army of administrators does little to relieve the documentation burden on clinicians, while creating layers of high-salaried bureaucratic expansion in healthcare organizations.

The bottom line is that the increase in the number of administrators has created a huge burden on physicians. For physicians, the focus is always on the patient. There’s only one person that makes the key diagnostic and other decisions on behalf of the patient and that’s the doctor.

Since the early 1980s, there has been a consolidation and aggregation of larger and larger physician groups in our health system, some affiliated with one or more hospitals. Then there’s the trend of hospitals merging into larger networks. All of that introduces a level of complexity that has grown exponentially and the degree of external regulatory requirements has also skyrocketed.

I’m just an old retired fighter pilot but I believe the sheer number of administrators is compromising relations between physicians and patients and helping drive healthcare costs into the stratosphere.

There has been a fundamental change in the business model, thanks to the astronomical changes of regulations and public reporting requirements. Automation and electronic medical records have actually not led to a workforce reduction. What’s increased is the amount of support needed to make those systems work.

My mother used a Doctor in Mountain Home Arkansas who had a small office in a drug store. He charged $5 for an office visit and made a very good living and donated a lot of money to the local college. If he could see what healthcare has become and the costs associated with the change, he would need to be resuscitated.

The healthcare industrial complex is paying bean counters more than Doctors in many cases. President Eisenhower would never believe the military industrial complex would become peanuts in comparison.

In the 1970s, the hospital was seen as an open workshop where doctors brought their patients and worked largely independent of the hospital. Now, more than 50 percent of physicians are employed by hospitals and work in large specialty groups. They’re being asked to follow protocols within a hospital system and report to administrators.

I understand how things work since several Doctors and a clinic was under my command and my responsibility in the military. That didn’t make me a Doctor! I never made an incision, examined a prostate or otherwise come between a Doctor and a patient. The healthcare administration should be a tool to help relieve physicians of administrative and clerical burden, which detracts from patient care and contributes to physician burnout. Beyond that, the best way to improve the quality of care that patients receive is to have a strong partnership between physicians and administrators so that both understand the complexity of how “quality” is defined and reported, and both understand the real-life details of high-quality care at the bedside.

Health systems should be more welcoming to physicians who want to be involved in administrative medicine. There needs to be a common understanding that the term physician-administrator does not require that a physician stop caring for patients. Physicians have to have the opportunity to be involved in administrative roles and continue to practice if that is their desire.

Malpractice premiums and jury awards are part of what drives spending. A larger problem, although hard to quantify, is “defensive medicine” where doctors prescribe unnecessary tests or treatment out of fear of facing a lawsuit. Fraudulent billing or unnecessary tests by medical providers seeking to “game the system” are another real problem. Do you think politicians, who receive huge political contributions from the healthcare industrial complex, are going to bite the hand that feeds them?

State laws limit the ability of nurse practitioners or other medical professionals, who are paid less than doctors, to fully perform work for which they are trained. The U.S. faces a shortage of primary care doctors, so more advanced practice nurses and others will be needed to help care for patients who gain insurance coverage under socialized healthcare laws.

Doctors believe that 21 percent of all medical care is unnecessary, including 22 percent of prescriptions, 25 percent of tests and 11 percent of procedures.

Nearly 85 percent of Doctors said the reason for overtreatment was fear of malpractice suits, but that fear is probably exaggerated since only 2 to 3 percent of patients pursue litigation, and paid claims have declined sharply in recent decades.

Nearly 60 percent of doctors said patients demand unnecessary treatment. A smaller number thought that limited access to medical records led to the problem.

More than 70 percent of doctors conceded that physicians are more likely to perform unnecessary procedures when they profit from them, while only 9.2 percent said that their own financial security was a factor.

My Flight Surgeon, who became the head of the Arkansas Health Department, once told me that his professor in Medical School told him that about 75 percent of his patients would get well whether he did anything or not and that 2 percent would die regardless of how much effort he put into saving them. Then he told my Flight Surgeon to try not to kill the other 23 percent. My percentages may be a little off but you get the idea.

You have seen the kind of leadership we have in Congress, the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, Veterans Affairs and the rest, do you think we have better leadership in the healthcare cartel? Do you think your state politicians have the capacity or will to even begin to understand the problem and formulate a solution?

We have placed our hope in Barney Fife and Gomer Pyle. Next January the three stooges will join them and together all our problems will be solved.

And now, Gene McVay returns you to Maxine Waters and John Brennen who will call the President of the United States a “Low down, lying skunk.”

Advertisements

Does Police Corruption Exist in your State or City?

July 26, 2018

Police corruption is the abuse of police authority for personal gain. Corruption may involve profit or another type of material benefit gained illegally as a consequence of the officer’s authority. Typical forms of corruption include bribery, extortion, receiving or fencing stolen goods, and selling drugs. The term also refers to patterns of misconduct within a given police department or special unit, particularly where offenses are repeated with the acquiescence of superiors or through other ongoing failure to correct them.

Safeguards against police misconduct exist throughout the law. Police departments themselves establish codes of conduct, train new recruits, and investigate and discipline officers, sometimes in cooperation with civilian complaint review boards which are intended to provide independent evaluative and remedial advice. Protections are also found in state law, which permits victims to sue police for damages in civil actions. Typically, these actions are brought for claims such as the use of excessive force (“police brutality”), false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and wrongful death. State actions may be brought simultaneously with additional claims for constitutional violations.

Through both criminal and civil statutes, federal law specifically targets police misconduct. Federal law is applicable to all state, county, and local officers, including those who work in correctional facilities. The key federal criminal statute makes it unlawful for anyone acting with police authority to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States (Section 18 U.S.C. § 241 [2000]). Another statute, commonly referred to as the police misconduct provision, makes it unlawful for state or local police to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of their rights (42 U.S.C.A. 14141 [2000]).

Additionally, federal law prohibits discrimination in police work. Any police department receiving federal funding is covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d) and the Office of Justice Programs statute (42 U.S.C. § 3789d[c]), which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. These laws prohibit conduct ranging from racial slurs and unjustified arrests to the refusal of departments to respond to discrimination complaints.

Because neither the federal criminal statute nor the civil police misconduct provision provides for lawsuits by individuals, only the federal government may bring suit under these laws. Enforcement is the responsibility of the justice department. Criminal convictions are punishable by fines and imprisonment. Civil convictions are remedied through injunctive relief, a type of court order that requires a change in behavior; typically, resolutions in such cases force police departments to stop abusive practices, institute types of reform, or submit to court supervision.

Private litigation against police officers or departments is difficult. Besides time and expense, a significant hurdle to success is found in the legal protections that police enjoy. Since the late twentieth century, many court decisions have expanded the powers of police to perform routine stops and searches. Plaintiffs generally must prove willful or unlawful conduct on the part of police; showing mere negligence or other failure of due care by police officers often does not suffice in court.

Most problematically of all for plaintiffs, police are protected by the defense of immunity—an exemption from penalties and burdens that the law generally places on other citizens. This immunity is limited, unlike the absolute immunity enjoyed by judges or legislators. In theory, the defense allows police to do their job without fear of reprisal. In practice, however, it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to sue law enforcement officers for damages for allegedly violating their civil rights. U.S. Supreme Court decisions have continually asserted the general rule that officers must be given the benefit of the doubt that they acted lawfully in carrying out their day-to-day duties, a position reasserted in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2001).

Society has grappled with misconduct and corruption issues for as long as it has had police officers. Through the mid-to-late nineteenth century, private police forces were commonplace, and agents of Pinkerton’s and other for hire services became notorious as the muscle employers used to violently end strikes. Heavy handed law enforcement as well as vigilantism by groups such as the racist ku klux klan spurred passage of the civil rights act of 1871, which criminalized acting under state law to deprive a person of constitutional or other rights under federal law. section 1983 of the act remains a critical tool in the early 2000s for enforcing constitutional rights, with direct applicability to police misconduct cases.

The twentieth century saw multiple legal, administrative, and scholarly approaches to the problem. Some developments bore indirectly upon police misconduct, such as the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which gave new protections to citizens who had long suffered discriminatory policing. Additionally, a string of landmark Supreme Court decisions during the era gave new force both to individual privacy rights as well as to curbs upon police power: highly influential cases resulted in the strengthening of fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, evidentiary rules forbidding the use at trial of evidence tainted by unconstitutional police actions, and the establishment of the so-called Miranda Warning requiring officers to advise detained suspects of their constitutional rights.

While these decisions profoundly shaped the legal and social landscape, renewed focus on police misconduct and corruption occurred in the latter part of the century. As the pioneering criminologist Herman Goldstein argued, traditional views were based on the assumption that police abuse reflected the moral failings of individual officers—the so-called “bad cop.” Public scandals began to shape a new view of the problem. In 1971, New York City organized the Knapp Commission to hold hearings on the extent of corruption in the city’s police department. Police officer Frank Serpico’s startling testimony against fellow officers not only revealed systemic corruption but highlighted a longstanding obstacle to investigating these abuses: the fraternal understanding among police officers known variously as “the Code of Silence” and “the Blue Curtain” under which officers regard testimony against a fellow officer as betrayal.

Broader recognition of the problem brought more ambitious reform efforts in the 1980s and 1990s. Spurred by the work of criminologists such as Goldstein and others, police departments sought to improve organizational rules, training, and prevention and control mechanisms. Such efforts are reflected in the publication of a code of police conduct by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, more rigorous training for officers, and experimented with so-called community policing programs to improve ties between officers and the public. Several cities established joint police and civilian complaint review boards to give citizens a larger role in what traditionally had been a closed, internal process by police departments.

Among the most dramatic examples of system-wide reform is New York City’s response to long-standing brutality, discrimination, and corruption within the New York City Police Department (NYPD). After flirting with civilian review of complaints against police in the 1960s, the city committed to it after public outcry over the videotaping of officers beating citizens who violated curfew in 1988. The city subsequently established its Civilian Complaint Review Board, which became an all-civilian agency in 1993. In 1992, responding to new complaints, Mayor David N. Dinkins appointed the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Procedures of the Police Department, known as the Mollen Commission. Two years later, the commission concluded that the city had alternated between cycles of corruption and reform. Afterwards, in 1995, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani established the full-time Commission to Combat Police Corruption (CCPC) as an entity independent from the police department. The CCPC monitors

The NYPD anti-corruption policies and procedures, conducts audits, and issues public reports.

Despite legal safeguards and well-intentioned reforms, police problems have continued to produce headlines. The exact scope of misconduct is unknown. Misconduct complaints can be quantified on a city-by-city basis, but these data are often subjective, and far more complaints are filed than ever are evaluated at trial. Corruption is even harder to measure. As the National Institute of Justice acknowledged in its May 2000 report, The Measurement of Police Integrity, most corruption incidents go unreported, and data that do exist “are best regarded as measures of a police agency’s anticorruption activity, not the actual level of corruption.”

During the late 1990s, highly-publicized cases in New York, New Jersey, Texas, Detroit, and Cleveland exposed an apparently new trend: police drug corruption. In the Cleveland case alone, the FBI arrested 42 officers from five law enforcement agencies in 1998 on charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. In a 1998 report to U.S. Congressman Charles B. Rangel, the federal general accounting office (GAO) found evidence of growing police involvement in drug sales, theft of drugs and money from drug dealers, and perjured testimony about illegal searches. The GAO survey of police commission reports and academic research suggested a troubling new dimension previously not seen in studies of police corruption. Traditionally, police corruption had been understood to involve individuals acting alone, but the new trend revealed officers working in small groups to protect and assist each other.

In 1999, this pattern emerged in one of the worst police corruption scandals in U.S. history. The scandal involved the Los Angeles Police Department’s Rampart precinct and particularly its elite anti-gang unit, CRASH (Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums). Following local and federal investigations, CRASH was dismantled, some 70 officers were investigated, and several either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of crimes ranging from drug theft and peddling to assault, fabricating arrests, and filing false reports.

The Rampart scandal bore heavy costs, financially as well as in human terms. Several dozen criminal convictions credited to the work of the corrupt officers were overturned. By 2003, the city had already paid $40 million to settle lawsuits. In a settlement with the federal government in 2000, the Los Angeles City Council accepted a consent decree that placed the city’s police department under the supervision of a federal judge for five years to implement and monitor reforms.

However, reform is no panacea. Even New York City’s extensive reforms were called into doubt by two high-profile police cases in the 1990s. Both highlighted the difficulties inherent in prosecuting even apparently clear-cut misconduct. The first, in 1997, involved Haitian immigrant Abner Louima, who was shockingly beaten in a police cruiser and sodomized in a bathroom with a broom handle by four NYPD officers. Louima ultimately settled a civil case against the department for $8.7 million in 2001, one of the highest police brutality settlements ever paid and the highest by New York City since paying a $3 million settlement in the choking death of Anthony Baez in 1994.

Yet, despite much public frustration, prosecution of the officers was less conclusive. Officer Justin Volpe pleaded guilty to leading the sodomy assault and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. However, in 1999, his fellow three officers were acquitted on charges of assault in the police cruiser; one of them, officer Charles Schwarz, was convicted of violating Louima’s civil rights for holding him down during the bathroom assault. In 2000, all three were convicted of obstructing justice for their actions in covering up evidence of the attack, but these convictions were later overturned in United States v. Schwarz, 283 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002). Ordered a new trial on the civil rights charge, Schwarz reached a plea bargain in September 2002, agreeing to be sentenced to a 5-year prison term.

The second New York controversy involved the killing in 1999 of an unarmed man. Four undercover police officers shot Amadou Diallo 41 times after stopping the Guinean immigrant in the vestibule of his apartment building, where, they said, he reached into his back pocket. Large public protests attracted activists such as Susan Sarandon and former New York mayor David Dinkins, who argued that the department’s so-called Aggressive Street Crimes Unit was in fact far too aggressive. In 2000, the four officers were acquitted in a trial that supporters said vindicated them but which critics blamed on lax prosecution.

Outside the courts, mounting resentment over discriminatory misconduct by police officers has occasionally led to rioting. In contemporary experience, the Los Angeles riots in 1992 followed the acquittal of white police officers charged with the videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King. In April 2001, three days of rioting in Cincinnati followed the acquittal of a white police officer on charges of shooting Timothy Thomas, a 19-year old unarmed black man.

Cities, courts, police departments, and criminologists all continue to examine ways to bring meaningful reform to police departments. Some critics have argued that misconduct and corruption are age-old problems that resist all efforts at eradication; the best society can do, in this view, is monitor and correct. Others trace recent problems to public policy that emphasizes aggressive policing of drug, gang, and street crimes. Whatever the cause and the solution, until more efficacious remedies are found, some citizens will still require protection from the very people appointed to protect and serve them.

The Three Wise Monkeys: Asa Hutchinson, Comey & Mueller

December 16, 2017

 

Maybe you are familiar with the three wise monkeys. Together they embody the proverbial principle “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”. I plan to make the case that Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson along with former FBI Directors James B. Comey and Robert S. Mueller, III, may be modern day wise monkeys?

Asa Hutchinson’s record of seeing, hearing and speaking no evil can be found as easily as tracking an elephant through the snow but most voters simply lack the time and inclination to actually know who they vote for. Maybe my research will help?

Asa Hutchinson, as a crime fighter, does not remind me of Eliot Ness, Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickok, he brings to mind Steven Quincy Urkel. Urkel is a fictional character on the ABC/CBS sitcom Family Matters who was originally slated to have been a one-time only character on the show; he soon became its most popular character and gradually became the main character.

I begin with a newspaper article by Mara Leveritt.  She won a White Award for investigative journalism in 1991, was named Arkansas Journalist of the Year in 1992, and was awarded Arkansas’s Booker Worthen Prize in 2000 for her book The Boys on the Tracks”.  She is also a contributing editor to the Arkansas Times”:

“Some strange things happened in Asa Hutchinson’s district while he was federal prosecutor that he doesn’t mention in his speeches. Specifically, a man identified by federal agents as “a documented, major narcotics trafficker” was using facilities at an airport in Hutchinson’s district for “storage, maintenance, and modification” of his drug-running aircraft, throughout most of Hutchinson’s tenure. The man was Adler Berriman “Barry” Seal. For the last four years of his life – and throughout Hutchinson’s term as U.S. attorney – his base of operations was Mena, Arkansas. In 1982, the year that Hutchinson took office as U.S. attorney and Seal moved to Mena, federal officials were already aware that he controlled “an international smuggling organization” that was “extremely well organized and extensive.” Agents for the DEA, FBI, U.S. Customs, and IRS were watching him. They brought Hutchinson evidence that Seal was “involved in narcotics trafficking and the laundering of funds derived from such trafficking.” . . . My interest in the relationship between Seal and Hutchinson was piqued as I became aware of how heavily drug prosecutions fell on street- and mid-level dealers, while smugglers like Seal, who imported drugs by the ton, rarely ended up in prison. So when rumors surfaced about Seal and his organization, and how they had managed for years to avoid prison, even though the extent of their activities was well known to drug authorities, I wanted to know more. But getting the story has not been easy. In the early 1990s, I asked Hutchinson about Barry Seal and his associates at Mena. Hutchinson provided no information, and politely dismissed the complaints that had arisen by then about his failure to prosecute Seal. He said he had already resigned as U.S. attorney by the time the matter arose . . . I believe that if this country is going to fight a long and costly war, the war’s leaders have an obligation to report faithfully on its battles. The incidents that surrounded Seal constituted a major battle. But the faithful report has been missing. For more than 15 years, U.S. government officials, including Hutchinson, who were close to the events have maintained a stony silence . .”

ACCORDING TO POLICE SOURCES in Arkansas, Bush’s reported nominee to head the DEA, Asa Hutchinson, knew about the extensive drug importation at Mena during the 1980s but looked the other way. Hutchinson was replaced by Mike Fitzhugh who was reluctant to let investigators Russell Welch of the state police and William Duncan of the IRS present evidence of money-laundry to a grand jury.

Russell Welch was poisoned with Military Grade Anthrax

According to a memo obtained later by Arkansas Times reporter Mara Leveritt, an FBI agent in Hot Springs notifies the agent in charge of the Little Rock office that Fitzhugh would be “withholding presentation” about the investigation at Mena from the grand jury. The memo is dated days before notorious drug trafficker Barry Seal’s murder, and a month before he was to come to Arkansas to appear before that same grand jury. The agent in Hot Springs further reports that Fitzhugh “advised that he will not utilize Seal as a government prosecution witness in view of his lack of credibility in other mitigating circumstances.” Wrote Leverrit, “For almost three years, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Arkansas considered questions about drug-running, money-laundering, and illegal airplane modification – all of which investigators believed were being conducted at the Mena airport. But Fitzhugh reportedly focused only on the drug-running allegations, the aspect of the case the jurors felt would be the most difficult one to prove about anyone except Seal, and he, by then, was dead. According to statements from one of the jurors, Fitzhugh refused to consider the money laundering or conspiracy charges, for both of which the jurors believed evidence was substantial. ‘We asked him about it,’ the juror said, “and it was like just blown off. We were never given a straight answer.’ Fitzhugh has denied having stymied the grand jury, but he has never explained why, in the three years it met, Welch and Duncan, the central investigators in the case, were never called to testify.”

IN 1995, THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR magazine published an article by L.D. Brown, a former member of Clinton’s Arkansas State Police security detail, in which he described participating in two secret flights from Mena in 1984, during which M-16 rifles were traded to Nicaraguan Contra rebels in exchange for cocaine. Brown also claims that Clinton knew of the activity. Writes Mara Leveritt in the Arkansas Times: “That announcement spurred Fort Smith lawyer Asa Hutchinson, chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, to request yet another Congressional Inquiry into long-standing allegations of money-laundering at Mena. Hutchinson was the the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas when investigators first presented evidence supporting those allegations. In an argument disputed by police investigators, Hutchinson claims he left office before the evidence was well established. Since he harbors political ambitions, he has an interest in clearing his name.” (Note: Are you beginning to see that Congressional Inquiries, like the Congressional Ethics Committee, have as much consequence as passing gas in a Category Five Hurricane?)

FROM A CONGRESSIONAL DEPOSITION from IRS investigator William Duncan:

Q. Would you describe the nature of your instructions and the manner in which you carried out those instructions as they relate to activities surrounding the Mena Airport matter?
A. I was assigned to investigate allegations of money laundering in connection with the Barry Seal organization, which was based at the Mena, Arkansas airport.
Q. And can you — how long a duration were you involved in this investigation?
A. I received the first information about Mena and illegal activities at the Mena Airport in April of 1983, in a meeting in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Asa Hutchinson was the U.S. Attorney then. Also present at that meeting was Drug Enforcement Administration Agent Jim Stepp, S-T-E-P-P.
Q. Did you discover what you believed to be money laundering?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Who was the object of your investigation, and what institution?
A. Rich Mountain Aviation, Incorporated based at the Mena Airport. Barry Seal was not actually a target. We had targeted the employees and cohorts of his which operated out of the Mena Airport.
Q. What did you do with the evidence of money laundering that you gathered from your investigation?
A. Presented it to the United States Attorney’s Office, Western Judicial District, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Q. And what were your recommendations to the U.S. Attorney?
A. That those individuals and corporation — the corporation be prosecuted for violations of the money laundering statutes, also there were some perjury recommendations and some conspiracy recommendations.
Q. Did you present to the U. S. Attorney a list of prospective witnesses to be called?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. For a grand jury?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you have the names of those witnesses?
A. There were a variety of witnesses. There were some 20 witnesses. He called three witnesses. The witnesses including — included the law enforcement personnel who had participated in the investigations, Barry Seal, members of his organization, people who were involved in the money laundering, and various financial institution officers who had knowledge.
Q. Mr. Duncan, the money laundering to which you refer, did that arise out of an alleged drug trafficking operation managed from the Mena, Arkansas airport?
A. It did.
Q. And it has been alleged that the Central Intelligence Agency had some role in that operation. Is that the same operation that you investigated?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you submitted the witnesses, the names of the prospective witnesses to the U. S. Attorney in Arkansas, are you referring to Mr. — what was the name of the U. S. Attorney?
A. Asa Hutchinson.
Q. Asa Hutchinson. And what was his reaction to your recommendations?
A. It had been my experience, from my history of working with Mr. Hutchinson, that all I had to do is ask for subpoenas for any witness and he would provide the subpoenas and subpoena them to a grand jury. His reaction in this case was to subpoena only three of the 20 to the grand jury.
Q. Now, of the three witnesses, who were — what was the nature of the evidence that would have been elicited from those witnesses?
A. Direct evidence in the money laundering.
Q. And did those witnesses testify for the grand jury?
A. yes, they did.
Q. Were you present at the time of the grand jury?
A. No, I was not.
Q. You were not?
A. I was in the witness room, but I was not in the grand jury.
Q. I see. What was the result of the testimony given by the three witnesses to the grand jury?
A. As two of the witnesses exited, one was a secretary who had received instructions ~~~ and I think on some occasions had discussed with Barry Seal, the methodology. She was furious when she exited the grand jury, was very upset, indicated to me that she had not been allowed to furnish her evidence to the grand jury. ~~~ She was the secretary for Rich Mountain Aviation, who participated in the money laundering operation upon the instructions of Hampton, Evans.

* * * * *

Asa Hutchinson was close to George Bush and a big player during his campaign for President by giving speeches on his behalf. Few people knew as much about the drug smuggling and money laundering business as Asa. While I met George H.W. Bush when he was Vice President, I never met “W”. When I met “H.W.” he shook my hand and I said, “I didn’t catch your name.” He clasped my hand with both of his hands and broke out in laughter. We talked for a few minutes and that was that.

I lost respect for “W” after we both attended USAF Pilot Training. I flew fighters most of my career and “W” checked out in the F-102 with the Texas Air National Guard. In those days it cost the taxpayers about six million dollars to train a Fighter Pilot. I ended up flying 50 Combat Missions in Vietnam while “W” simply blew off his obligation. After the taxpayers spend the money to train an Air Force Pilot, the Pilot incurs a five year obligation to defend America. If I had quit flying and started politicking, I would have gone straight to jail. My daddy was a mechanic, not the Director of the CIA, so the double standard that existed then and exists today favors only the high and mighty. George W. Bush even refused to take his annual Flight Physical and moved out of state to help somebody during a political campaign. Finally, “W” returned to Texas to take the physical but never returned to the cockpit. He couldn’t take the chance of being sent to Vietnam and becoming a decorated combat pilot like his dad but he found time to become Commander in Chief.

*****

Russell Mokhiber is the editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter, a weekly newsletter based in Washington, D.C. Russell interviewed Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary for President George W. Bush, from January 2001 to July 2003.

RUSSELL MOKHIBER – Ari, you said the other day that the United States is “set in stone against military coups of any kind.” And yet, there is a long history of the United States organizing coups against democratically elected leaders, including, Arbenz in Guatemala, Mossadegh in Iran, Allende in Chile and Lumumba in the Congo. So, when you said we are “set in stone against military coups of any kind,” were you announcing a new policy?

ARI FLEISCHER: Russell, I think the examples you use are interesting. I think when you talked about Iran, you just went back to 1954. President Bush came into office here in 2001. And one of the great prides and success stories of American politics has been that in the last 20 years, there has been a wonderful sea change in Central and South America, brought in large part, as a result of Otto Reich and Elliot Abrams and others — Ronald Reagan, George Bush — who worked very hard to bring democracy to the region. And as a result, there is a difference in the military in those regions.

Reich was a Cuban-American obsessed with overthrowing Fidel Castro’s regime and was also a big political supporter of President Bush’s brother and Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who needed strong support from Cubans in Florida in his re-election bid. Reich, along with fellow Reagan administration cohorts, Elliott Abrams and John Negroponte, were discredited for their covert activities and false assertions when the United States intervened in Central America in the 1980’s and ’90s, but were re-instated in prominent positions in the second Bush administration. They abhor Latin-American governments that are elected by the poor and working class people.

Abrams was convicted of lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra scandal, but was remarkably rehabilitated and recycled back into the second Bush administration as head of the “Office of Democracy and Human Rights.” Negroponte was appointed as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in spite of being implicated as a friend of Honduran death squad leaders who committed atrocities against the people of Honduras while he was the U.S. Ambassador there. The most recent resurrection of this trio of renegades is the appointment of Otto Reich as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs . . . On September 30, 1987 a Republican appointed comptroller general of the U.S. found that Reich had done things as director of the OPD that were “prohibited, covert propaganda activities, “beyond the range of acceptable agency public information activities….”

WASHINGTON POST: Sheriff Ari Fleischer was on duty Thursday and upset with Houston Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth. Bush that morning urged parents to talk more to their kids about the dangers of drugs. Roth, at Fleischer’s daily briefing, asked: “Ari, the president talked about parental involvement today. How much has he talked to his own daughters about both drugs and drinking? And given the fact that his own daughter was cited for underage drinking, isn’t that a sign that there’s only so much effect that a parent can have on their children’s behavior?” Fleischer responded brusquely: “No, I think, frankly, there are some issues where I think it’s very important for you all in the press corps to recognize that he is the president of the United States; he’s also a father. And the press corps has been very respectful in the past of treating family matters with privacy, and I’m certain that you’re going to do so again. I hope so.” Fleischer later called Roth to chastise him, telling him his question had been “noted in the building.”

JOEL SKOUSEN’S WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF: Robert Mueller was responsible for the prosecution of Gen. Manuel Noriega of Panama, who was the CIA’s main money launderer for CIA operations in Panama. Even Congress knew of Noriega’s CIA connections. Senator Kerry said that Noriega “had been on the payroll and an employee of the CIA for many, many, many years” Noriega was taken down by the CIA and prosecuted because he was found to be taking a much larger cut out of CIA drug profits than was agreed upon. During the trial, the presiding judge ruled that Noriega could not enter into evidence any documents proving his relationship to the CIA over the years. Mueller helped cover up this major issue by silencing Noriega . . . Mueller presided over the prosecution of John Gotti, the alleged Mafia head of the Gambino family group. CIA agent Richard Beneke, in response to a question of whether or not the Gotti family had ties to the CIA, testified, “Yes. As far back as 1968 and early 1969, we had begun to launder money from organized crime families in New York. At that time, Mr. Gotti was an up and coming member of one of the families. We used to wash their money out overseas and put it in Switzerland in nice, safe places for them.”We do not know why the government turned on Gotti as a partner in crime. Perhaps he was also found guilty of skimming too much off the top.

Are you beginning to get the picture yet? Who could be trusted to run the Drug Enforcement Agency and not spill the beans? Only one of the most trusted Wise Monkeys, Asa Hutchinson, of course. George W. Bush’s dad was Vice President from 1981 until 1989 and President from 89 until 93. Clearly, “W” couldn’t have any skeletons pop out of the closet or have some rouge DEA Administrator get curious about our pretended War on Drugs!

One of my friends ran the Counter Drug efforts for the Air National Guard. I was in his office in the swamp when our government was tracking a Boeing 727 aircraft from the U.S. to an airport in Mexico. The highly coordinated effort between the U.S. and Mexican authorities were ready to pounce on the jet in Mexico. It was known to be carrying a lot of U.S. unmarked currency. With sirens blaring, the highly trained authorities chased the wrong aircraft and surrounded its surprised crew. Meanwhile, the 727 with the cash unloaded and disappeared into the Mexican night. We pretended to go after the Drug Cartels and they pretended to be scared.

Asa “Urkel” Hutchinson vanquished the drug moister so ineptly that he became the Father of the Transportation Security Agency. Pretending to solve problems so people would FEEL safe required a man like Asa. The United States managed to survive for 226 years, including two world wars, without a Department of Homeland Security. It took a BIG GOVERNMENT Republican to expand the bureaucracy and the swamp.

Here is what the new bureaucracy says it does: “The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 240,000 employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, and our goal is clear – keeping America safe.”

When the TSA fondles little girls and grandmothers in wheelchairs, Americans FEEL safe; almost as safe as they feel when NSA spies on law abiding Americans and our best allies like Israel.

Unfortunately none of this big government road show has prevented a single terrorist attack or secured our 92,000 miles of coastline. During security tests, more than 90% of fake guns and bombs made it through TSA security undetected. I rarely fly on airlines because I am not content with feeling safe. I feel safe on private jets and have flown a couple of hundred hours on them. The real shame is that the United States could become secure like Israel but Little Satan is not politically correct. Israel profiles! There, I said it. Israeli leaders know that little girls don’t hijack airliners and they don’t hire pedophiles as airport security. They also have a sophisticated wall on their southern border with radar that can detect a vehicle several miles away and a person within a mile. The Israeli government likes to know who enters their country and what their intentions are. The willy-nilly U.S. homeland security would never satisfy the Israeli Citizens, not for a New York second.

Asa “Urkel” Hutchinson has fought President Trump since before he endorsed Little Marco. He often appears on MSNBC with his like-minded buddies and trashes our President. He fought against repealing and replacing Obamacare and refused to give the President’s Voter Fraud Commission the information they asked for from Arkansas. My guess is that the 60% of Arkansas voters who supported President Trump and several thousand who have wised up since, are not happy with Governor Hutchinson who has depended on 100% of the Democrats and his handful of RINOs to steamroll his liberal, socialist agenda through the Arkansas Legislature.

Many people are telling me they just didn’t know. The Republican Primary is in May. Will you make an effort to know who you’re voting for this time?

When President Trump talks about the Swamp, he’s not kidding! The good guys like Generals Petraeus and Flynn get the shaft while the seedy folks, like the Wise Monkeys, get the plum jobs and all the glory.

The IG System is Fraudulent!

December 14, 2017

 

Al Franken wanted to go before the fraudulent Senate Ethics Committee for good reason!

Surprise, the government Inspector General System is 1,000 times more fraudulent!

IG’s are not independent & almost NEVER substantiate fraud or criminal activity!

Whistleblowing is suicide!

Every federal employee or member of the Armed Forces knows that if they report fraud waste & abuse the IG will crucify them.

Reprisals against whistleblowers are a career ending certainty.

For 40 years I have begged for criminal investigations into the IG system!

FW&A costs taxpayers a trillion dollars!

Congress passed Whistleblower Protection Laws and later strengthened the laws but nothing has any effect on the absolute certainty of reprisals.

If you watched Rosenstein thumb his nose at Congress you got a tiny taste of the arrogance of the deep state.

Members of Congress who are appeased or comforted by IG Investigations are worse than fools!

Do you trust the FBI, DOJ, VA, EPA, IRS, TSA and State Department to investigate themselves?

Do you Understand the Brilliance of Donald Trump?

November 21, 2017

Most of the talking heads you watch on TV never managed a lemonade stand. This includes the Mainstream News Media, Congressmen, Hollywood Celebrities and Writers of every description. They have no idea what President Trump does on a daily basis or why he does it.

I, on the other hand, was given colossal responsibility in the government and also made a few dollars in a dozen business enterprises. Before I retired from the Air Force, I commanded a six billion dollar multi-national, joint Provisional Wing. I wrote the 2007 book, Top Gun Management. I walked the halls of the Pentagon, State Department and National Security Agency. I visited with Presidents, Generals, legendary Senators and billionaire businessmen.

What looks like pandemonium to the greenhorn looks like the New York Philharmonic Orchestra to me.

Watching Donald Trump maneuver through the Swamp, Saudi Palaces and World Capitals is to watch the Master at work. He does not lead from behind nor does he sway to and fro. Our President plays for keeps and does not flinch. He does not bluster, draw red lines or make idle threats.

Just two and a half months after taking the Presidential Oath of Office, President Trump ordered a cruise missile strike against Syria saying, “No child of God should ever suffer the horror of the chemical weapons attack Syria launched on its own people.” Don’t think for one second that despots failed to pay attention. That was a clear message that a new Sheriff had arrived. The World stood up and took notice.

China’s leaders had such low regard for Barack Obama they would not even provide a staircase for him to leave Air Force One during his chaotic arrival in Hangzhou before the start of the G20 Conference.

For the same Conference, Chinese authorities rolled out the red carpet for other leaders including India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, the South Korean President, Park Geun-hye, Brazil’s President, Michel Temer, and the British Prime Minister, Theresa May.

The leader of the world’s largest economy on his final tour of Asia was forced to disembark from Air Force One through a little-used exit in the plane’s belly after no rolling staircase was provided after he landed in the eastern Chinese city.

“The reception that President Obama and his staff got when they arrived here Saturday afternoon was bruising, even by Chinese standards,” the New York Times reported.

Jorge Guajardo, Mexico’s former ambassador to China, said he was convinced Obama’s treatment was part of a calculated snub, “These things do not happen by mistake. Not with the Chinese,” he said.

The Saudi Arabia visit when Barack Hussein Obama bowed down to King Abdullah in the palace stood in stark contrast to President Trump’s visit when King Salman met President Trump at the bottom of the steps of Air Force One and bowed to our President.

If Liberals and Never-Trumpers would pay attention, they might see how things work in the real world as opposed to the Swamp and Never-never-Land.

Trump’s ascension to the pinnacle of power in America was not unlike a Business Tycoon who just completed a large-scale acquisition and merger that brought together multiple smaller companies into one giant conglomerate.

After the merger, the CEO wants to put his or her own people in charge of everything. That’s what Obama did and why his Cabinet looked like a combination of the Dirty Dozen and the Keystone Cops.

Fundamental change cannot be done with a Magic Wand. All those smaller companies in the merger had their own executives – and, at least for the short term – a CEO needs to keep many of them around to keep things running as the blending progresses. So, you keep many of those executives around, letting them retain their own senior staff. You even appoint one of them – the head of the largest of the companies you acquired – to be the CEO of the conglomerate, and he pledges to get all the departments working together harmoniously.

After a well-oiled transition period, some of them are doing fine in the new conglomerate, while others are clearly causing trouble.

In fact, the one you appointed CEO, is clearly a disaster. And the newly merged departments are working against each other. Furthermore, you have good suspicion he is dealing in insider trading – nothing you can take to a prosecutor, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence building up. Worse, he is not only doing his own dirty dealing, but it appears he may even be leaking intellectual property to your competitors, helping them take market share from you. Does that sound like Reince Priebus?

Clearly, ole Reince has to go – and go now.

The problem is, many of the senior employees in your conglomerate are loyal to him. If you just fire him and put in your own chosen CEO, you know you could get a lot of backlash from disgruntled employees. Knowing that in your business there is such a small profit-margin, you really can’t afford anything at all that threatens performance. So, what do you do?

You send for Batman, Superman or a Hatchet Man. The hatchet man is someone you bring in for sole purpose of slashing the problems and shaking things up over a very short period of time – but doing so in such a way that deflects any blame or blowback away from you. As soon as the problems are hacked away, the hatchet man leaves – taking the ire and resentment with him, leaving you free to bring in your new team for a fresh start.

This is what happens all the time in the business world. And Donald Trump is a businessman. He knows how this works. He has lived this time and time again. We’ve seen him do it on “The Apprentice.” We’ve read about it in his books (I have an autographed copy). This should not be a surprise to anyone except for Liberals and Never-Trumpers who live in their own bubble.

When Trump won the election, he essentially performed the political equivalent of an acquisition and merger. He brought together different political factions – establishment Republicans, conservatives, Tea Party, religious right, moderates, independents, cross-overs – into one winning political coup. For some, it was a hostile takeover. So, if they were going to be dragged into it against their will, they would sure as hell resist.

Priebus, as the then-chairman of the Republican National Committee, was hired as White House Chief of Staff to be the sort of post-merger CEO. It was his job to bring all these political factions together and get them to work harmoniously but he failed. Worse, there is ample evidence to suggest he not only failed, but also worked against Trump and the Trump agenda. Look at the leaks. Look at all the chaos. Look at all the bureaucracy continuing to work at odds with the president. Priebus – and a number of other people around him – had to go.

Donald Trump had known for some time that Priebus was a disaster. He was going to give him his six-month trial period – that’s a fairly common thing in the private business sector. After that, heads were going to roll. But Trump himself didn’t want to be the Hatchet man. He needed to be able to lead after the bloodbath. So, what did he do? He turned to an old friend he has known for many years – someone with nothing to lose, someone who can step in with a hatchet and hack away, someone who can, after the hacking, just walk away from it all and leave the slate clean. He turned to Anthony Scaramucci.

So what does Scaramucci do? He comes in swinging. He fires a few people to make a quick example. He tells others they can “resign” right now if they want to – but if not, they will be fired. Others see what is going on and quit of their own accord.

That problem CEO, Priebus!? Oh, the new “structure” of the organization puts Scaramucci in direct competition with Priebus – and Priebus throws up his hands and says “fine, I’m out of here.” And Scaramucci does it all in a way that is spectacularly visible to draw all the fire from Trump critics.

So how does it all end up? It ends up with Trump putting in his new CEO – retired Marine general John Kelly – the one he probably wanted from day one, but held back – and the new CEO-White House chief of staff says “OK, Scaramucci – you are no longer needed here.”

General Kelly now has a clean slate to start fresh – and Scaramucci takes all the heat. Where the Left and Never-Trumpers see a circus freak-show, realists from the business world see a perfectly executed post-merger Hatchet-man job.

The political wonks see General Kelly taking command as the first sane thing to happen in this administration. They don’t realize they’ve been played, and played perfectly. And soon we will likely see some other changes that move the Executive Branch further towards what Trump has wanted it to be from day one. And then watch the real swamp-drainer get to work.

Oh, and Scaramucci? He gets a sweet deal out of all this – no doubt, he and his friend Donald Trump talked it all out first.

With Priebus out and Kelly in, things will settle down. Pretty soon, all the Left will have to say is “we just don’t like Trump’s policies.” Once that happens, the Left is dead because Trump’s policies are policies that most Americans actually agree with. We should put America first. We must build back our economy; create jobs; strengthen the military; protect the borders. Outside a few densely-populated Liberal strongholds, like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and – of course – Washington, D.C., in general, Americans agree with all of Trump’s plan. So, when all the Left has to say is “Trump’s policies are wrong,” the Left will literally be telling most of America, “you people are stupid and Deplorable.”

In 2020, running for his second term, President Donald Trump will win 47 states, just like Ronald Reagan did. The Left will be scratching their heads and wondering what just happened, while some may become Trump’s Democrats. And you’ll be able to look back and say, “hey, some of us told you all this back then, in 2017.”

Some of the Democrats can see this scenario already and they look at the sky and scream or they chant, “Impeach him, impeach him.” At the end of two terms, the snowflakes will still be staring at Trump like a calf looking at a new gate but they will also be scratching their heads and seeking a safe space.

Remember, the goal is to Make America Great Again and put America first!

What Happens in DC, Stays in DC

November 16, 2017

I think you folks back home can appreciate the need to protect the Nation’s Secrets in the Nation’s Capitol Building. The hard working taxpayers should not be burdened with the scandals in the Swamp including Congressmen chasing Interns through offices and around the hallowed statues of Segregationists like Robert Byrd and J. William Fulbright!

The Congressmen sometimes work 20 hours a month and, we all know, all work and no play makes for very dull Congressmen.

Therefore, our esteemed Congressmen established a taxpayer funded slush fund that allows our Congressmen to commit the crime of sexual harassment, pay off anybody who might expose the crime and live happily ever after.

I know, you thought our Congressmen couldn’t accomplish anything just because they couldn’t fix healthcare, cut taxes, cut reckless spending or bring those to justice who traded our uranium to Russia for some magic beans.

Silly you! Our Congressmen not only make laws that hog-tie hard working Americans while quadrupling our healthcare insurance premiums, they also were able to divert tax dollars to that neat little slush fund. So far the fund has paid out fifteen million dollars in hush money. Those fifteen million dollars could have built a Bridge to Nowhere or bought bureaucrats 250 Sport Utility Vehicles to cruise around the Swamp and take two hour lunch breaks.

The latest Gallup Congress Approval Poll stands at 16% but we all know the polls are rigged. My sense is that the number is closer to 7%?

How do you suppose Congress was able to approve that slush fund? Was it approved on an unlit airport tarmac or on the Floor of the United States House of Representatives? How did the Congressional Budget Office markup the slush fund? How did Paul Ryan vote? Mitch McConnell? John McCain? Bob Corker?

Now that this criminal activity has been exposed, what are the chances Congressional Hearings will be held and a Special Prosecutor Appointed?

Congress has been silent while President Trump has been raked over the coals; will you allow this to be swept under the rug? Will you demand to know who was paid off, what for and how much?

I am just one old retired fighter pilot but I am sick and tired of the secrecy, corruption and debauchery that is rampant in the Capitol Building, Cannon Building, Ford Building, Longworth Building, O’Neill Building, Rayburn Building, Russell Senate Office Building, Dirksen Senate Office Building and Hart Senate Office Building.

Congress can investigate General Flynn and President Trump while they thumb their noses at the Constitution!!!! Nobody is accountable in the Swamp? Do you care?

HOW LONG WILL ARKANSANS BE CONTENT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HEAP?

November 5, 2017

During the Arkansas Primary Election, Governor Hutchinson and most of the Republican Legislators endorsed Marco Rubio. Little Marco carried only two counties, Pulaski and Benton.

Almost none of the Legislators endorsed Donald Trump who carried 59 counties. On the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders won only one county during what we now know was a rigged election.

During the General Election, also likely heavily rigged, the registered vote was Donald Trump 60.57% to 33.65% for Hillary Clinton. Nobody knows what the actual vote was, likely more than 70% for President Trump.

The largest county with the Capital City of Little Rock and one of the most dangerous cities in America went for Hillary with 56.06%. Little Rock is the Swamp in Arkansas.

The first action Asa Hutchinson took as Arkansas Governor was to embrace socialized medicine. His nephews in the Legislature threw their support to their uncle Asa even though Senator Hendren had warned that the Obamacare Private Option would gobble up the entire Arkansas Budget.

Well, since 2010 the uninsured rate in Arkansas has jumped by almost 10% and next year the Obamacare Silver Plan premiums will jump by 23%.

Governor Hutchinson has fought tooth and nail against the President and for Obamacare against the will of the good people of Arkansas who elected him. I am including a link to a video of Governor Hutchinson’s appearance on MSNBC, yes, MSNBC where Asa Hutchison fits right in with the other Left Wing Liberals. Do you support Governor Hutchinson’s fight against our President and for big insurance companies and the hospital lobby?

Who owns Governor Hutchinson? His major contributions are Uncoded so we can’t know for sure. However, after Uncoded Contributions he received $207,412.58 from Lawyers and Lobbyists. The top sector was Finance, Insurance & Real Estate at $357,731.27. From Health he received $192,398.10 and from Health Professionals he netted $82,196.66. Hospitals and Nursing Homes chipped in $67,483.

So how is Arkansas doing now that so much money is going to politicians instead of healthcare? According to a CBS News report two months ago, Arkansas was ranked the fourth worst state for healthcare behind Louisiana, Mississippi and Alaska. That means Arkansas has a high heart disease rate, cancer rate, low number of dentists, etc. When it comes to life expectancy, quality of life, and overall health coverage, Arkansas is nothing to write home about.

The next time you walk into an Arkansas hospital or clinic and they hand you a clipboard that has been passed around between sick people, think about what kind of germs and diseases that clipboard contains. You won’t be handed a clipboard in Minnesota where the life expectancy is more than five years longer than Arkansas. Minnesota is second to Hawaii with the longest life expectancy, Arkansas is 46th.

Yes, Arkansas has a Health Department but what are they doing? How clean are our hospitals? Do they disinfect rooms or just change sheets? Is it cheaper to ply politicians with big bucks or to put patient healthcare first? Why do we need ten administrators for every Medical Doctor and why do we shackle Doctors with two hours a day of documentation? That’s a rhetorical question! The reason, as we all know, is because Lawyers make a fortune suing Doctors! Governor Hutchinson is a Lawyer and former Lobbyist!

Can Arkansas do better? Probably not with this Lawyer Governor! What could you do if you lived five years longer? What could you do if you had better healthcare at a much lower cost? That is what President Trump wants to give you and what Governor Hutchinson is trying to deny you!

Do you think Apple, Wal-Mart or Amazon could create a nationwide healthcare insurance company that could compete with Blue Cross? In a New York minute! I remember when the Blue Cross CEO in Massachusetts got a multimillion dollar pay raise after losing a huge percentage of customers. Multiply that by 50 states! There is no incentive for insurance companies to cut costs. Bean counters are paid more than Surgeons and CEOs are paid millions. The Wal-Mart World Headquarters in Bentonville would simply not be fancy enough for any major insurance company in America! Those Blue Cross Skyscrapers are not adding one second to your life expectancy but they are picking your pockets.

The aircraft pictured is just one jet owned by Blue Cross. This one belongs to South Carolina Blue Cross. It’s barely 150 miles completely across South Carolina! Do you hear a giant sucking sound? It’s the sound of insurance companies empowered by politicians sucking the money out of your pockets! Can you picture an insurance executive or Governor Asa Hutchinson riding in Sam Walton’s old Ford pickup?

My Fellow Arkansans, if you are content being stuck at the bottom of the heap, KEEP IT UP! Keep voting for slick career politicians who represent Lawyers, Lobbyists and Insurance Companies. We’ll keep the Nation’s highest taxes and lowest wages and keep coughing up money to buy new tires because Arkansas potholes have potholes. Arkansas will keep the 55 mph speed limit, not because it is safer or because it will save gas but because traffic fines are a major additional revenue stream for the Arkansas speed trap. Arkansas will keep its bloated bureaucracies and bureaucrats will keep driving SUVs.

Trump was Right Again, the Election was Rigged!

November 2, 2017

Donna Brazile was employed by CNN when she acquired the Presidential Debate Questions and shared them with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Donna has had an epiphany and written her tell all book eviscerating everybody except herself. That’s what Democrats do.

In her forthcoming book, former DNC chair Donna Brazile absolutely unloads on her Democrat Party, blasting Barack Obama for decimating the DNC’s finances, savaging the leadership of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and confirming that Hillary Clinton’s campaign had the party in its pocket long before she was its nominee. You’ll likely recall Donald Trump’s frequent play to Bernie supporters during the general election, claiming that the Democratic establishment “rigged” the nominating process against Sanders and for Clinton. He probably didn’t even realize how absolutely accurate that characterization was. Here is an extended excerpt from Brazile’s book, and my my, is it explosive.

First, she takes a hatchet to the state of the party heading into the 2016 election:

My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt…Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt. “What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.” That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016…If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.

I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie. So I followed the money…By September 7…I had found my proof and it broke my heart…The [Clinton] campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn. “Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?” Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
The timeline is damning. Brazile writes that the ‘victory fund’ agreement that basically placed the Democratic National Committee under the control of Hillary Clinton’s campaign was signed months before a single primary vote was cast. This is extraordinary:

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer…When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party…This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

“If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead,” she writes, stating the obvious. I’ll note that this extraordinary scheme somehow didn’t make it into What Happened. How strange. Finally, Brazile describes her phone call revealing these discoveries to Bernie — placed on September 7, in the thick of the general election’s home stretch:

I had to keep my promise to Bernie. I was in agony as I dialed him. Keeping this secret was against everything that I stood for, all that I valued as a woman and as a public servant. “Hello, senator. I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,” I said. “But I will not kill the patient.”…I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election. Bernie took this stoically. He did not yell or express outrage. Instead he asked me what I thought Hillary’s chances were. The polls were unanimous in her winning but what, he wanted to know, was my own assessment? I had to be frank with him. I did not trust the polls, I said. I told him I had visited states around the country and I found a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere. I was concerned about the Obama coalition and about millennials…When I hung up the call to Bernie, I started to cry, not out of guilt, but out of anger. We would go forward. We had to.

These revelations should send shock-waves through the Democratic Left. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump repeatedly suggested that Hillary Clinton’s party had secretly manipulated the rules of the game to make sure that anyone who challenged her would be crushed. They were right. And the millions of people who voted for — and donated to Bernie Sanders — were betrayed and lied to. I’ll leave you with this: Brazile casts herself as a truth-finding pillar of integrity in this account, but beyond sitting on this information for more than a year, didn’t she also play an active role in pro-Hillary rigging?

FOR EVERY MEDICAL DOCTOR THERE ARE 10 ADMINISTRATORS

October 29, 2017

Doctors’ fees account for only 8 cents of the healthcare dollar.

And apparently, Congress is shying away from federal-level reform. The Republicans want all torts reform and such at the State level (this is per the American College of Surgeons Policy Office). While it makes sense for States to take the lead in many governmental issues, the current healthcare situation is out of control, painful and unworkable.

On top of that, the current FEDERALLY mandated requirements for physician documentation are ONLY linked to reimbursement with NO IDENTIFIABLE link to better patient outcomes or improved quality of care. Nevertheless, they DO add an average of two hours to physician’s and surgeon’s workdays while decreasing the actual amount of time patients and doctors spend together. Do you think big government regulations help or hinder patient care? Mounds of documentation have no real purpose beyond torts protection.

The result of added regulations and requirements for doctors is suffering healthcare and skyrocketing costs. More regulations mean new jobs for administrators and other nonmedical personnel while decreasing the value of good medical care per dollar spent.

In many cases, hospital and insurance company bean counters and administrators are paid more than physicians and surgeons while they have much less than half the professional education.

I remember when the Blue Cross CEO of a single state received a multimillion dollar pay raise after a huge drop in customers. Multiply that by 50 states and the District of Columbia.

If Congress does not get on the same page with President Trump, we may have to receive our healthcare from bean counters and administrators?

Should President Trump Crush Mueller?

October 24, 2017

Mueller knew EVERYTHING about the Bill Clinton Russian collusion including meeting with Putin at his home!

Why do you think Mueller was selected to investigate President Trump?

Turns out Billy was a very busy boy meeting on the unlit tarmac in the middle of the night and collecting over a hundred million dollars to funnel 20% of weapons grade United States uranium to Russia.

Tell Vladimir I will French kiss him after the rigged election!

Why are BOTH Clinton’s, Mueller, Obama, Lynch, Holder and Rosenstein not locked up at Leavenworth Federal Prison?

The most lawless administration in the history of the United States has permanently destroyed the credibility of the FBI, NSA, IRS, DOJ, CIA, State Department, BLM, EPA and VA just for starters. Yes, these crooks, who called Bowe Bergdahl an American hero, fundamentally changed America with full support from CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Hollywood celebrities.

These Never Trumpers have done everything within their power to start Civil War II and bring down America.

The only thing standing between us and the Philistines is the modern day David with a slingshot. God gave us Donald J. Trump even though America does not deserve him.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team running the Russia collusion probe are being accused by fellow attorneys of employing aggressive and questionable tactics in past cases, potentially putting a dent in his straight-shooter image.

As the investigation heats up and key players like former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and press secretary Sean Spicer are interviewed by investigators, several attorneys with experience in federal cases spoke out with their concerns this week.

Harvey Silverglate, a criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts, wrote an opinion piece accusing Mueller of once trying to entrap him when Mueller was acting U.S. attorney in Boston. Most Americans cannot imagine how treacherous and despicable the swamp creatures really are. If you’re looking for a friend in Washington, get a dog.

“I have known Mueller during key moments of his career as a federal prosecutor,” Silverglate wrote for WGBH News. “My experience has taught me to approach whatever he does in the Trump investigation with a requisite degree of skepticism or, at the very least, extreme caution.”

According to Silverglate, Mueller once sent someone into Silverglate’s office offering to give false testimony for a client. Silverglate said he turned the offer down and noticed the man was wearing a wire.

“Years later I ran into Mueller, and I told him of my disappointment in being the target of a sting where there was no reason to think that I would knowingly present perjured evidence to a court,” Silverglate wrote. “Mueller, half-apologetically, told me that he never really thought that I would suborn perjury, but that he had a duty to pursue the lead given to him.”

A spokesman for the special counsel’s office declined to comment.

Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor, also took aim at Andrew Weissmann, the prosecutor tapped by Mueller to help lead the investigation, in a piece this week titled, “Judging by Mueller’s staffing choices, he may not be very interested in justice.”

Powell accused Weissmann, once the director of the Enron Task Force, of “prosecutorial overreach” in past cases and said it could signal what’s to come for President Trump and his associates in the Russia probe.

“What was supposed to have been a search for Russia’s cyberspace intrusions into our electoral politics has morphed into a malevolent mission targeting friends, family and colleagues of the president,” Powell wrote in The Hill. “The Mueller investigation has become an all-out assault to find crimes to pin on them — and it won’t matter if there are no crimes to be found. This team can make some.”

President Trump should apologize to all real swamps.  Absolutely nobody can be trusted in the DC Swamp, it’s more like Hell.

Would you trust Mueller to investigate Mother Teresa?  I trust a rattlesnake more than Mueller, Lynch, Comey and Hillary combined.  As for Sessions, I wonder if he is the Attorney General or just the Attorney General Monitor.