For some time now, I have been wrestling with the idea of "Universal Healthcare". Being a free market kind of person, I have always felt that a "free market" solution was the best and most cost effective way to solve our health care problem.

I have come to realize a bit late in the game, that the United States no longer operates as a "free market" economy. While we say and think we do, we are really kidding ourselves. Large corporations and government have gotten together and perverted the issue of "free market". We have also gone beyond the point of no return, and the system is incapable of reforming itself, and correcting previous mistakes.

There will be those who say that we cannot afford a "Universal Healthcare" solution. They may be right, but only in the contex that the "black budget" items, military spending/weapons procurement, establishment and maintenance of military bases overseas, spying/surveillance portions of government spending make it impossible to spend money on where it is really needed, healthcare, and social infrastructure improvements and repair.

The most recent health care study published in the Lancet ranked the US 35th in the world compared to other nations. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-countries-healthcare.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-nwletter

Clearly, what we have been doing is not working, and we need to re-think and take a new approach to this issue.

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump’s decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and National Security Agency.
“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”
The revelation comes as Trump faces rising legal and political pressure on multiple Russia-related fronts. Last week, he fired FBI Director James B. Comey in the midst of a bureau investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Trump’s subsequent admission that his decision was driven by “this Russia thing” was seen by critics as attempted obstruction of justice.
[Political chaos in Washington is a return on investment in Moscow]
One day after dismissing Comey, Trump welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — a key figure in earlier Russia controversies — into the Oval Office. It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details about an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.
For most anyone in government discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.
“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”
The CIA declined to comment and the National Security Agency did not respond to requests for comment.
But officials expressed concern with Trump’s handling of sensitive information as well as his grasp of the potential consequences. Exposure of an intelligence stream that has provided critical insight into the Islamic State, they said, could hinder the United States’ and its allies’ ability to detect future threats.
“It is all kind of shocking,” said a former senior U.S. official close to current administration officials. “Trump seems to be very reckless, and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it’s all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.”
In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” Trump said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.
Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States only learned through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence gathering method, but described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.
The Washington Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.
“Everyone knows this stream is very sensitive and the idea of sharing it at this level of granularity with the Russians is troubling,” said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who also worked closely with members of the Trump national security team. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.
The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved. Officials said that the capability could be useful for other purposes, possibly providing intelligence on Russia’s presence in Syria. Moscow and would be keenly interested in identifying that source and possibly disrupting it.
Russia and the United States both regard the Islamic State as an enemy and share limited information about terrorist threats. But the two nations have competing agendas in Syria, where Moscow has deployed military assets and personnel to support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
“Russia could identify our sources or techniques,” the senior U.S. official said. A former intelligence official who handled high-level intelligence on Russia said that given the clues Trump provided, “I don’t think that it would be that hard [for Russian spy services] to figure this out.”
At a more fundamental level, the information wasn’t the United States’ to provide to others. Under the rules of espionage, governments — and even individual agencies — are given significant control over whether and how the information they gather is disseminated even after it has been shared. Violating that practice undercuts trust considered essential to sharing secrets.
The officials declined to identify the ally, but said it is one that has previously voiced frustration with Washington’s inability to safeguard sensitive information related to Iraq and Syria.
“If that partner learned we’d given this to Russia without their knowledge or asking first that is a blow to that relationship,” the U.S. official said.
Trump also described measures that the United States has taken or is contemplating to counter the threat, including military operations in Iraq and Syria as well as other steps to tighten security, officials said.
The officials would not discuss details of those measures, but the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed that it is considering banning laptops and other large electronic devices from carry-on bags on flights between Europe and the United States. The United States and Britain imposed a similar ban in March affecting travelers passing through airports in 10 Muslim-majority countries.
Trump cast the countermeasures in wistful terms. “Can you believe the world we live in today?” he said, according to one official. “Isn’t it crazy.”
Lavrov and Kislyak were also accompanied by aides.
A Russian photographer took photos of part of the session that were released by the Russian state-owned Tass news agency. No U.S. news organization was allowed to attend any part of the meeting.
Senior White House officials appeared to recognize quickly that Trump had overstepped and moved to contain the potential fallout.
Thomas P. Bossert, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, placed calls to the directors of the CIA and the NSA, services most directly involved in the intelligence-sharing arrangement with the partner.
One of Bossert’s subordinates also called for the problematic portion of Trump’s discussion to be stricken from internal memos and for the full transcript to be limited to a small circle of recipients, efforts to prevent sensitive details from being disseminated further or leaked.
Trump has repeatedly gone off-script in his dealings with high-ranking foreign officials, most notably in his contentious introductory conversation with the Australian Prime Minister earlier this year. He has also faced criticism for lax attention to security at his Florida retreat Mar-a-Lago, where he appeared to field preliminary reports of a North Korea missile launch in full view of casual diners.
U.S. officials said that the National Security Council continues to prepare multi-page briefings for Trump to guide him through conversations with foreign leaders but that he has insisted that the guidance be distilled to a single page of bullet points, and often ignores those.
“He seems to get in the room or on the phone and just goes with it — and that has big downsides,” the second former official said. “Does he understand what’s classified and what’s not? That’s what worries me.”
Lavrov’s reaction to the Trump disclosures was muted, officials said, calling for the United States to work more closely with Moscow on fighting terrorism.
Kislyak has figured prominently in damaging stories about the Trump administration’s ties to Russia. Trump’s initial national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign just 24 days into the job over his contacts with Kislyak and misleading statements about them. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself from matters related to the FBI’s Russia investigation after it was revealed that he had met and spoke with Kislyak despite denying any contact with Russian officials during his confirmation hearing.
“I’m sure Kislyak was able to fire off a good cable back to the Kremlin with all the details” he gleaned from Trump, said the former U.S. official who handled intelligence on Russia.
The White House readout of the meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak made no mention of the discussion of a terrorist threat.
“Trump emphasized the need to work together to end the conflict in Syria,” the summary said. Trump also “raised Ukraine” and “emphasized his desire to build a better relationship between the United States and Russia.”
 
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/ar-BBBaWuJ?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Frustration Abounds In Trump White House

By Jordan Fabian & Jonathan Easley ~ May 16, 2017 ~ The Hill

Trump World has a blunt message for the president: empower your staff or hire a new one.

Former aides, GOP strategists and sources close to the White House tell The Hill they’re concerned about how Trump’s handling of James Comey’s firing as FBI director has undermined the people who work for him.

Changes seemed imminent late last week as the president seethed with anger over the rollout of Comey’s firing.

But with Trump set to begin his first foreign trip as president on Friday, many think the threat of staff changes has lifted, at least for now.

Still, many view a reshuffling as all but guaranteed at some point this year, casting a pall over a White House staff that always appears one wrong move away from unemployment.

The repeated rumors of a shakeup have damaged morale, with aides acknowledging that the tempest surrounding Comey’s firing is the worst to hit the White House yet.

Allies close to the administration want to see Trump act decisively or move on, rather than keep his staff in limbo under threat of change.

“We’ve all seen this movie before,” said one former Trump adviser. “I don’t know that it’s any more or less real this time, but it’s getting old. If you have a problem, fix it and move on.”

The rumors have touched nearly every corner of the West Wing, including senior advisers such as chief of staff Reince Priebus and strategist Stephen Bannon. The most intense speculation in recent days has centered on the press operation and embattled press secretary Sean Spicer.

Multiple reports indicate Trump kept his communications team in the dark ahead of firing Comey, leading to a chaotic rollout that produced conflicting stories about the reasoning behind the decision.

The turmoil led Trump to publicly question the performance of his media relations staff. The president said in an interview last Friday with Fox News that he doesn’t see a need for the daily White House press briefings and that his press shop isn’t able to keep up with his fast-paced approach.

While Trump praised Spicer as a “nice man,” he declined to definitively say if he would keep his current post.

“He’s doing a good job, but he gets beat up,” Trump said. Pressed on whether he’d keep Spicer at the lectern, Trump said, “He’s been there at the beginning.”

A subdued Spicer returned to the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room on Monday, where he faced another barrage of questions over Trump’s decision to fire Comey.

White House spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

Those who have worked for Trump say it is common knowledge that, with the exception of family, staff members live on thin ice.

But confusion over the division of responsibilities on the team of rivals Trump has assembled has created a White House where leaks have become the norm.

Trump’s allies say he is frustrated by the leaks, which they say are coming from advisers who either don’t believe in Trump’s message, refuse to buy into the way he does business, or are so obsessed by the Washington power game that they’d risk harming the administration to boost their own image.

The president, in turn, has grown so distrustful of his staff that he chose to keep many of them out of the loop until the last minute on his decision to fire Comey, according to The Associated Press.

“You almost have to clean house and bring in true believers that are better capable of governing. Dissatisfied people leak, so clearly a lot of senior advisers are not happy,” said one former campaign adviser.

A sweeping reshuffle would bring its own set of difficulties.

Trump’s thirst for personal loyalty could narrow the universe of Republicans he might consider hiring, given that many top GOP aides were deeply critical of him during the 2016 campaign. It’s a problem the White House has encountered as it struggles to fill posts across the federal government.

“Who is he going to shake it up with?” wondered one Trump associate. “Who are these senior Republicans who he would be talking to?”

At the same time, the ally stressed that whoever is brought in would have to have enough gravitas to carry out major changes, saying, “He’s going to have to bring in a real, real political pro to fix this thing.”

Others say Trump has brought these problems upon himself by shutting out many of his top aides and advisers or contradicting them in public.

“The problem is not Spicer or [White House communications director Michael] Dubke if you tell them 45 minutes in advance that you’re firing Jim Comey,” said one former adviser. “If you lack confidence in your communications team, go find people you have confidence in.”

Republican strategist John Feehery, who is also a columnist for The Hill, made a similar point.

“The White House is actually doing pretty well when the president doesn’t screw up,” he said. “They needed to have a better system of controlling his anger.”

In past administrations, the chief of staff has taken on the role of gatekeeper to the president, controlling who meets with him and what information he receives.

In Trump’s White House, rival factions exist in competition for Trump’s ear.

Former Trump aides and GOP operatives with close ties to the White House say Trump has not given Priebus enough responsibility.

“The leaks shows a total lack of discipline, and that starts with the chief of staff,” said a former Trump adviser. “The only way to be effective here is for the chief of staff to grab the loudest, most inveterate opponents inside the White House and to fire them. If the president hasn’t empowered him to do that, then he needs to walk.”

Insiders who spoke to The Hill believe that despite recent reports, Bannon is probably safe. He represents Trump’s core economic nationalist vision, and it is believed that Trump’s base would flee if the president narrowed his inner circle to Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and economic adviser Gary Cohn, who are viewed as liberals by many grassroots conservatives.

“There would be tremendous base flight if Bannon were gone,” said one former adviser.

Bannon’s allies believe Kushner is pushing his father-in-law to clean house.

Political watchers say the appearance of chaos and the backdrop of uncertainty has undercut Trump’s credibility on the global stage as he prepares to make his first overseas trip, which includes stops in Saudi Arabia and Israel as well as summit meetings with major U.S. allies.

“Trump’s credibility abroad is taking severe hits,” Ian Bremmer, the president of the Eurasia Group, wrote in a dispatch to clients. “On the back of Emmanuel Macron’s win in France, continental European leaders together view Trump as a dangerous buffoon, one to be increasingly strategized against, rather than with.”

Niall Stanage Contributed.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333529-frustration-abounds-in-trump-white-house

I received the following earlier today. It is condensed with the paragraph breaks eliminated, making it more difficult to read but this news could mark a huge turning point for this country; on a level with the Lincoln, FDR and LBJ presidencies but in the corect direction. You may want to follow the link to National Review.

The states can convene & propose constitutional amendments to rein in federal power. Last week, one of the most significant events in the history of our constitutional republic in our lifetime occurred: Delegations, consisting primarily of state legislators, from all 50 states gathered in Colonial Williamsburg with the intent to rein in the federal government’s abuse of power. An assembly of 137 delegates representing every state quietly convened in a simulation that, when convened officially, could effectively strip Washington of its purloined power overnight. Legally. What’s this all about? Article V of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and we’re all familiar with that process. It’s happened successfully 27 times in our nation’s history, and it’s how we’ve accomplished some important things, like ending slavery and guaranteeing women’s right to vote. But Article V also grants the same power to the states to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. That power hasn’t been exercised in American history — yet. The reason this provision was added to the Constitution, just two days before the close of the 1787 convention, was a concern raised by George Mason. In keeping with the checks and balances of the Framers, Mason believed that no branch of government should have the power to determine the extent of its own power. He predicted that someday the federal government would abuse the carefully enumerated powers bestowed in the text of the Constitution. When that day arrived, structural amendments would be needed to curtail federal usurpations, but if Congress alone had the power to propose amendments, no corrections would ever be forthcoming. Based on this clear-headed observation, the Framers unanimously added the option for the states to propose amendments through a convention of states. The U.S. Constitution is a grant of specific, limited powers to the federal government to fulfill its duty to preserve and protect individual rights and promote the “general welfare.” But the Founders recognized that the federal government might overstep and abuse those powers, and that it was highly unlikely Congress would then act to restrain itself. So the Founders also gave the states the power to convene together and propose amendments to the Constitution to restrain federal abuses, in what Article V calls a “convention” of the states. Article V reads: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states . . . In other words, two-thirds (34) of the states pass an application for a convention to propose amendments, then the states choose their delegates, and whatever amendments are passed at that convention by the states still need to be ratified by the same process as any congressional amendment. Over the years, the states have enacted over 400 applications for a convention, but none has ever been called, because two-thirds of the states have never agreed on the subject matter for such a convention. Several states have already called for a convention to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and impose term limits on federal officials. It was this application that formed the framework for the convention-of-states simulation last week in Colonial Williamsburg. Every state sent delegates, who spent two days debating dozens of ideas for amendments under these general topics. The simulated convention passed significant amendment proposals on the following six ideas: 1. Requiring the states to approve any increase in the national debt 2. Imposing term limits on Congress (effective retroactively) 3. Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning 4. Limiting the power of federal regulations by allowing an easy congressional override 5. Requiring a supermajority to impose federal taxes and repealing the 16th Amendment, which legalized the federal income tax 6. Giving the states (by a three-fifths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation, or executive order This is the Founders’ solution to Washington’s hunger for power and institutional corruption, and the states are rallying. Other amendment proposals were discussed and debated, including term limits on the Supreme Court and giving the states the power to vacate a Supreme Court opinion. The simulation lasted only two days, but the real convention of states would have sufficient time to consider amendments and carefully craft final texts. Importantly, the Convention does not have power (just as Congress does not have power) under Article V to rewrite or completely overhaul the U.S. Constitution, or propose amendments beyond the scope of the application passed through each state legislature. Two of the nation’s foremost constitutional attorneys have written extensively on the procedural safeguards of a convention of states, and this simulation showed exactly how and why it will work as a check on the federal government, exactly as intended. This is the Founders’ solution to Washington’s hunger for power and institutional corruption, and the states are rallying. Going into the 2017 legislative sessions, eight states have passed the convention of states application and another 30 states have considered it. We all need to pay attention to the states and the Convention of States Project. We may feel horribly frustrated at national-level politics and parties for dozens of reasons. But we have one very important reason to remain hopeful for the preservation of liberty — at the state level, the convention of states can and will happen. We can and should get involved in our states and help lobby our legislators to pass the application for a convention. The future of our country doesn’t rest solely on the results in November. There is a much bigger and better solution in the U.S. Constitution itself — in Article V. — Michael Farris is the co-founder of the Convention of States Project. He is a constitutional-law attorney, the chancellor of Patrick Henry College, and the chairman and general counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association. Jenna Ellis is a constitutional law attorney and a professor of legal studies at Colorado Christian University. She is the author of the book The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution and a fellow at the Centennial Institute.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440506/constitutional-amendments-states-convention