King Barack or King Donald

The left likes to accuse Trump of aspiring to be king.  I just don't see it.  Trump has moved to give up executive authority, not extend it.  However, Barry the Brilliant not only thought he could be king, he acted like he was king by divine right, aka "the fierce urgency of now." Trump is just forcing Congress to do its job to change immigration law according to the Constitution. The left hates checks and balances, and thinks judges should rule based on what they want the law to be, rather than what the law is. The left also thinks good manners are more important than good policy or the faithful execution of the law. The left has a theoretically brilliant program that's never worked in the real world. So the left lies constantly, because the truth would screw them. Example: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period."

The left is projecting what they would do on Trump.  But Trump is too lazy to want to run everything.  He's much happier restoring Constitutional government where the president has limited powers, and more free time.

Better Alternatives to Net Neutrality

Net neutrality was the wrong solution.  It just added more government regulations to solve a problem caused by government regulations.  The solution should be to remove the regulations that grant ISP's monopolies free from competition.

ISP's monopoly power comes from control of the "last mile" that connects to your house.  Local governments, like the village I live in, grant exclusive rights to a single ISP.  Nobody else can string coax or fiber in the local government's area.  Congress can outlaw this practice because it's local governments interfering with interstate commerce.

There's also a lot of reserved TV spectrum that could be used for super wifi.  Local TV spectrum is reserved for TV whether it's used or not.  In smaller markets, with only a few TV stations, there is a whole lot of idle spectrum that could be reallocated to provide broadband Internet over the air.  The spectrum could be auctioned off to raise revenue for the Feds.  In low density rural areas, this might be the only way to provide high speed internet.

What Police Didn't Do at Charlottesville

The key to understanding what happened at Charlottesville is what the police didn't do. They didn't keep the white supremacists separated from the Antifa / BLM counter protesters. Keeping the two sides separated is standard procedure in a volatile situation like a white supremacist Nazi march. So why didn't the police keep the two groups separated? The Charlottesville police had agreed to keep the two sides separated, according to Hunter Wallace, a supporter of the white supremacist marchers at Charlottesville. In his blog, as quoted in the LA Times article linked below, he says, "Violent antifa [anti-fascists] were not penned in their own area as per our agreement with the Charlottesville Police Department, but were roaming the streets and blocking the entrance to Lee Park." I think the local Democrat officials and the Governor of Virginia wanted a violent confrontation to stir up racial division. I think they ordered the police not to keep the two groups separated. There are strong rumors that the cops were ordered to stand down. This tactic of withdrawing police protection to facilitate a convenient riot is common in places like Venezuela where the left uses street violence to advance their cause politically. I believe that this riot was intentionally permitted, because the Democrats in charge thought it would embarrass Trump and Republicans in general. It certainly worked better than they could have dreamed. This is just speculation on my part, but I hope some brave journalists will investigate and see justice done.

Who was responsible for the violence in Charlottesville? Here's what witnesses say

Allow Escape from Obamacare

It's clear that Obamacare can't be repealed, but it doesn't have to be. The Cruz Amendment, to allow insurance companies to sell health insurance that does not comply with any of the Obamacare coverage mandates, is the only logical answer here. Let people escape from Obamacare, and you won't have to repeal it. Obamacare will be abandoned by most sensible health insurance customers except for people in high risk categories. If people can vote on Obamacare with their feet, Obamacare will lose. This provision could be included in a reconciliation bill if the government loses enough on each person covered by a subsidy. Any person who left Obamacare for lower cost private insurance would save the government money.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would have to be leaned on a little bit, but they richly deserve it. The CBO said Obamacare would save the government money. Given how far into a death spiral Obamacare is, that's a big LOL at this point. The Congress needs to pass instructions to the CBO on how to score people who leave the program for less expensive private insurance as part of the bill. The prediction should be based on the rates people paid before Obamacare, adjusted by the cost of living. If the CBO won't follow instructions, fire the top earners in the CBO and get a revised estimate. They serve at the pleasure of the majority party in Congress essentially. It's time to pretend we're ruthless Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. A provision like this will force Democrats to explain why people can't choose their own coverage, even coverage that doesn't cover pre-existing conditions. The cross subsidy younger healthier people give to sicker older people under Obamacare is something Democrats conceal, because socialism is sold by fraud. Make Democrats explain why Obamacare has to be a government enforced monopoly, why they can't permit any private competition. When the lies about who pays the true costs are exposed, it will be easier to pass a bill. That's the alternative that will work.