Fedewa on health care

This week’s column is an updated reprint of a piece I wrote a couple of years ago when the backlash against “Obamacare” first inspired Republicans to talk about “repeal and replace”. Since they are still talking and since the Dems are now also talking about health care alternatives – especially federal takeover of all health care – the topic remains open for new ideas. I have approached the topic from the perspective of a clean sheet of paper. Why try to build a system on the bones of a failed system, a system no one likes? Why not instead build a new system on a foundation of goals which everyone accepts and agrees with? This is my answer to that question. The starting point for a discussion of a national health care system should be setting our goals. I believe that American health care should be:

1. High quality and state-of-the-art

2. Available to all

3. Affordable

4. Abundant

5. Well-fundedWhat are the principal obstacles to these goals?a. The shortage of medical personnel.

This shortage has two facets:1) not enough medical professionals are produced in the first place, and2) too many drop out before their time. There are whole areas of inner cities and rural America, for example, which have no physicians at all. Why? Because our medical schools do not graduate enough doctors to serve the population of the United States. Why not? Lack of intelligent students? Lack of students who are motivated to give their lives in service to humanity? Not at all. The reason is lack of money! Medical education is so lengthy and so costly in this country that very few students can afford to go to medical school. This situation has created a national crisis. One very good use of taxpayer funds would be to offer medical and nursing school students free tuition, open to all qualified applicants. We do it for the military, why not for doctors and nurses? The cost would be minuscule compared to the Department of Defense or agricultural subsidies. This policy would have a massive return on public investment. More doctors would increase coverage of the population (perhaps there should be a requirement for a graduate M.D. and R.N. to spend two years in a “no-doctor zone”). More doctors would increase competition for the patient dollar. More could devote themselves to research. New people, new ideas, new openness to change. The quality of care would go up, and the cost would go down – a mantra we have been hearing a lot lately. This program would also assure continuing support for U.S. medical technology which is already the envy of the world.                             

b. Inadequate fundingSo how do we provide for adequate funding? Where does the $3 trillion we now spend go? The money flow starts with the employers who pay the insurance companies out of profits. It then goes mainly to the vast bureaucracies in the insurance companies which distribute the money, the government which oversees the money, and the hospitals and practitioners who must respond to the companies and the government. Health care expenditures in the USA are approximately as follows: (Source: National Health Expenditures 2017 Highlights – CMS data) – Medicaid $581.9 billion- Medicare $705.6 billion

  • From these sources are paid:

–          Practitioners = 20% – $700 billion-          Hospitals = 33% – $1.1 trillion  

Only about one-fifth of the $3.5 trillion spent on healthcare gets to the practitioners. So how can this labyrinth be simplified?1)      It is a drag on the efficiency of the economic system by vastly increasing the cost of starting and staying in a business, and2)     it is a drag on the healthcare system by removing from individuals the responsibility of seeing to their own health needs. c. Insurance Companies and GovernmentA patient-centered system also reduces the role of federal and state governments (61% of health expenditures). The patient doesn’t need the insurance company or the government. If both the government and the insurance companies were completely eliminated from the system, nearly two-thirds of the cost of American health care would be gone.

Of course, there will always be some need for both, so assume that half of that cost would be gone. At today’s rates, that would be about $2+ trillion. This is a gross number, but it shows the potential. 

1)      There is still a place for insurance companies in this system, although dramatically reduced. The most obvious place is for catastrophic insurance. A safety net for when something very expensive happens to someone in the family – or the church, or the credit union, or whatever assembly of people the individual chooses to participate with. And this brings us to the role of governments. 

2)     The first federal government act should be to lift all interstate commerce restrictions on insurance companies, so that they are free and invited to offer policies in any or all the states they wish without the necessity of creating a separate bureaucracy for every state they enter.  

3)     The second federal reform should be the creation of a program for financial aid to qualified students in the medical professions. My suggestion would be a free education in exchange for a period of service in under-served areas of practice as determined by a federal government body, such as, CDC or NIH or HHS (CMS). 4)     A third federal reform which would dramatically reduce national health care costs is tort reform. Everyone makes mistakes, including medical practitioners and hospitals. It is the federal government’s role to protect both the treatment sector and the patient. But the current practice of unlimited liability has led to “defensive medicine,” that is, exhaustive tests and treatments used far beyond medical purposes. These extras are done to provide a defense against the inevitable lawsuit in case anything goes wrong. This uber caution has become a major cost driver in American medicine. Congress should set reasonable and realistic limits on the monies which can be given to the victims of everything from malfeasance to honest mistakes. No more windfalls for injury lawyers.d. Universal CoverageThe larger issue is care for the poor and the other under-served members of our nation. The concept of universal care is a noble and worthwhile goal. But socialized medicine is not the only or even the best way to achieve universal care.

We have governmentprograms to feed the hungry; to provide health care for the elderly;to protect the innocent. We can provide health care access to the poor and the under-served, whether because of poverty or location. We can also do better than the COBRA coverage for those who lose their jobs. It is very tempting to design a system in which no government plays a major role. However, the most efficient way to care for the poor would seem to be a State-run program which levies a small per capita fee on each pool of insured to be placed in a designated fund, administered by the State, for the benefit of qualified citizens. A model for such a program might be the Medicaid programs in each State. Another model is the Uninsured Driver programs administered by the states. e. MedicareWe have now discussed the entire healthcare cycle without mentioning Medicare. There is a moral and legal mandate involved in Medicare which does not exist elsewhere. Medicare works reasonably well as a medical insurance system for those who contributed to it all their working lives.

The most prudent and honorable way to approach Medicare would seem to be to leave it alone for those to whom commitments were made, even while moving the system slowly toward a patient-centered system for those just starting out, with free choices developed for those in mid-career. The pressure of the free market system we have been describing here will undoubtedly alter and reform Medicare as the new system matures in due course. ConclusionSo here is what a free market system might look like. It would fulfill all our goals for an American system that is:

 1. State-of-the-art

;2. Available to all in need;

3. Affordable;4. Abundant; and5. Well-financed. To get there, we need to:1. increase the supply of medical practitioners,2. create a patient-centered system by letting the patient spend his or her own money on healthcare;3. create state-sponsored safety nets for the poor and underserved.These proposals, of course, seem radical today, even in America’s free market culture. But sometimes the most obvious solution is indeed the best. The fact is that the employer-based system we have today was initiated because the elite of another day needed a quick way to exempt health care costs from federal taxes. No one thought that this simple IRS rule would hamper businesses forever. So, let’s change that! 

From Larry Fedewa:ie in the sky can hit you on the eye!Let’s get practical

If we thought that Hillary with all her baggage was about as sorry a candidate as the Democratic party could come up with, the current crop of aspirants is proving us wrong. This crop does not seem to have even a coherent message. They are angry, they fight each other, they see horror everywhere, they are advocating pie in the sky, and they hate Donald Trump. That’s about it.Unless some superstar emerges from the shadows, or Mr. Trump flounders into a recession, it’s hard to see much of a contest in 2020. Not that the Republicans haven’t had their own streaks of weak candidates  – one winner in two out of six elections between 1992 and 2016 is not a sterling record. But so far it is difficult to take the people in the Democrat field seriously.

Most want to eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years – when there is no comparable substitute? When the entire world depends on fossil fuels for survival? Even their statement of the problem is out of date. Nobody can look at the violent weather we have been experiencing and doubt that the climate is changing. But when has it ever not changed? As far back as records go there have been changes in the climate. What about the Ice Age?Yesterday the scientists were telling us that there is global warming and the polar ice cap is melting. If that were true, battery-driven cars wouldn’t help us much. The first thing to do would be to move all the seaside structures to higher ground (as Andrew Yang proposes). But we see large numbers of people who won’t even move their towns away from flood planes after being flooded out every other year. How are we going to move New York City or Los Angeles inland?And more recent data are showing that the ice cap isn’t melting anymore. Not only that, but after the Council of Rome scared us all in the 1970’s with the idea that climate change was controlled by human carbon emissions, the more sober climatologists have begun to assert that human intervention is vastly overrated. Common sense tells us that we can’t change the weather. True –  air, water and food pollution are dramatically affected by human waste. But most of that damage in today’s world is done by the developing nations — which were not even included in the Paris Accords which every Democrat running for the presidency vows to reinstate.  It was basically an agreement by which the USA would pay for as much of the world pollution as India and China wanted to have cleaned up.Another characteristic of our sophomoric class of presidential wannabes is that they have a hard time understanding facts which do not agree with their ideas.

This is not only the case with climatology, but also with other positions they take. For example, they keep insisting that the Trump tax reduction benefited primarily the very wealthy – corporations and individuals. The recent data show clearly that the tightening labor market is benefiting the lower skilled workers disproportionately with half of the 7 million new jobs going to minority workers at an average 8% increase in pay with the highest employment numbers in history. The Enterprise Zones are attracting billions of new investment dollars and property values are increasing by 20% – helpful especially to the more than half that population who own their own homes.There is no question that the poorest areas of our country – both in the great cities and some rural areas – need attention. There is truly no excuse for the wealthiest country in the history of the world to tolerate homelessness, starvation, untreated illnesses, drug addiction and sub-par education.But talking about these problems is not going to solve them. Nor are more federal programs. The Great Society proved that – those programs made the problems worse, including the breakdown  of the family structure. 

The President doesn’t use the most effective words, but he does more than talk – he acts.  Actions ultimately speak louder than words.And then there is education. To summarize the superficiality of the current ideas once over lightly: They want to give way college education while ignoring K-12. What is wrong with this picture?  First, only about 1/3 of Americans graduate from college, while by law 100% of Americans attend at least 10 years of lower education. Second, K-12 schools – especially in the poorer sectors of our country – are fundamentally flawed in curriculum as well as teaching quality. They are singularly unsuccessful in preparing children for earning a livelihood in this digital society. They are run by local governments for the benefit of the administrators  guided by the teachers’ unions. Since those unions are instruments of the Democrat party, they are not on that political agenda.The fundamental issue of today’s post-secondary education is its cost. Since the state and federal governments got seriously involved in higher education, their tuitions, fees and lodging have skyrocketed! Most federal money has gone for buildings – and have they ever built buildings! Since when did a college need an athletic field house more ornate than most professional facilities were a generation ago? What does that have to do with teaching math or history? The truth is that colleges are no more successful than K-12 schools in preparing our 21stcentury work force – with a few exceptions in technology and engineering. The entire educational establishment is outdated and in need of serious reform. It is a hopelessly expensive boondoggle, which is not going to be fixed by spending another $10 trillion of public money.

.And finally, there is health care. That is too big for this week. Stay tuned for next week’s column. © 2019 Richfield Press LLC. All rights reserved.

My Tweets August 1st

Democratic two night debate is about who was the big loser as much as who were the winner. Coco and I made the following observations on Tuesday before the debate

We talked about Harris own inconsistency on her health care plan and her attempt to have it both ways, you can keep your health insurance or there will be no private health insurance and her position on busing moved toward Biden post debate.

Coco discussed her war on sex workers and nailed her for a libertarian perspective as AG. All played a role. Harris couldn’t defend her own health care plan on cost and it became obvious, she is going end private insurance. She didn’t really understand her own plan.

Biden hit her on her own view on busing and oh yeah, Tulsi finished the job and destroyed her record as AG. As we called it on Tuesday. Harris is in trouble because these are issues than can’t disappear

It is not that she was a tough AG but she allowed innocents stay in jail due to hiding evidence that would have freed them. Her health care plan is no different than Warren or Sanders but she no real understanding of her plan. These are issues that she can’t defend in the future

In my view, this debate was devastating for her future run.

Joe Biden was sharper and his exchange with Gillibrand allowed him that one moment that allowed him to shine with a sound bite. He won night two because Harris imploded in her exchange with Tulsi, and Warren and Sanders won their night but neither one moved ahead of the others.

Warren and Sanders did not confront each other but beat the moderates like a drum, which allowed them to move forward on the left lane and with Harris failure, they will have opportunity to gain a few points in the poll.

Warren and Sanders did not confront each other but beat the moderates like a drum, which allowed them to move forward on the left lane and with Harris failure, they will have opportunity to gain a few points in the poll.

Winners and should keep them in the debate panel is Gabbard, Yang and Williamson even though the last two are not serious candidates but Williamson is so entertaining, it is worth having in the debate about beating Trump with love and dark forces among us.

Gabbard and Mayor Pete are not ready for primetime or to be the President nomination but maybe VP? Booker is certainly running as if he is seeking the VP slot as he kept saying, we should all get along. Gabbard is intriguing since she is the peace candidate.

Plus as she showed with Harris, she is the perfect pitbull and the media will lap her up. The fact that Harris is calling her Putin’s candidate shows that Gabbard hurt Harris and Team Harris knows it.

Tlaib favors one state solution for Israel and Palestine.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-from-two-states-to-one-michigan-s-tlaib-shifts-position-on-israel-1.6387175

http://inthesetimes.com/article/21383/rashida-tlaib-democratic-socialism-palestine-israel-michigan

https://www.thenation.com/article/rashida-tlaib-palestinian-thobe-washington/

From Dr. Larry

The Age of Monochromatic Late-Night Humor(Reprinted from PJ Media, March 25, 2019)
Comedian Jay Leno performs a standup routine at the RP Funding Center in Lakeland Fla. on Jan. 5, 2019. (AP Photo/Reinhold Matay)By A.J. Rice 
Late-night comedy has become the sound of left-hand clapping. Steve Allen, Johnny Carson, and Jay Leno kept you awake by making you laugh. The tiresome political antics of today’s late-night dilettantes make you wish you’d gone to bed early.


It’s not a question so much of left or right as it is of having a bunch of one-track-minds. The punchline is always the same: Orange Man Bad, Orange Man Evil, Orange Man Crazy. Every night, all the time. As predictable as Pravda during the Brezhnev years — and just as amusing.
Jay Leno — who is funny — commented on badgering in the guise of “comedy” this month during an interview with Al Roker of NBC’s Today show.


“It’s different,” Leno said. “I don’t miss it. You know, everything now is, if people don’t like your politics, they – everyone has to know your politics.” Perhaps because today’s late-night hosts insist you know their politics.


Most comedians are innately damaged and insecure people, which could explain the Roman candle display of virtue signaling on a nightly basis.
Is there any doubt about the political leanings of the two Jimmies — and the one Colbert? How about the predictable Seth Meyers or the limey James Corden? Their orientation is as obvious as Liberace’s.
The Jimmies — and the one Colbert — not only want to make sure you know where they stand, they practically demand you stand there, too.
Contrast them with Leno, Carson, Jack Paar, or The Merv Griffin Show. We knew they were funny. We had no idea how they voted. They were wise enough to know that we didn’t want to know their political preferences. It’s true that in show business you’re supposed to “show” what you are feeling, but, sadly, all I hear nowadays is what MSNBC is feeling.


What people want is a clever gag, a good belly laugh, and to be in on the joke rather than the butt of it. “The theory when we did the show was you just watch the news, we’ll make fun of the news, and you get your mind off the news,” Leno explained.


Everyone in the news was Leno’s target. Left, right, and in between. They all got pie in the face. The audience didn’t get a finger-wagging scolding. The same could not be said of David Letterman, who started to transform into a bearded bohemian left-wing Marxist Studies professor toward the end of his run.Letterman should be viewed as a John the Baptist figure for today’s late night liberal chicanery.


Leno told the Today Show that he knew he was doing his job as long as he got hate mail equally from both sides — and laughs from everyone. Leno’s successors seem to regard their audiences — which are declining — as the targets. Not of humor, but of proselytizing.


Between the three broadcast networks, you have five hetero white guys, all telling the same jokes. “You just have one subject that’s the same topic every night, ” Leno sighed. It “makes it very hard.” And, very boring.
Five unctuous, admonishing liberal Caucasians who don’t like Trump. And make it very clear. Over and over and over and over. How exciting and creative.


Ok, guys — we get it. People go to church to hear preaching. And they go because there’s no pretense about the preaching. People get what they came for.Late-night comedy was different — once. At some point, someone decided all jokes must be political and priggish. In case you haven’t been paying attention since JFK was assassinated, the news always kind of sucks.
People used to tune in for humor not hate. Now the high priests of Trump hostility feed their disciples right on past midnight. Johnny — and Jay and even talented guys like Craig Ferguson — did take sides, of course. If it was funny, it was fair game. The two Jimmies — and the one Colbert — only think it’s funny if it involves ripping conservative media or elected Republicans.


The people who support the president — or anything that isn’t hard left — are now the object of ridicule, which is something very different from humor.No big surprise, Leno’s old show — The Tonight Show — has been hemorrhaging viewers in tandem with the other monochromatic monologuers — ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. The latter is still the “most watched” of the late-night not-so-funny-shows, but only because it has lost fewer viewers than the others.


Fallon and Kimmel’s audiences have dropped by about 10 percent each, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Their overall numbers are also weak; Colbert’s show averages 3.67 million viewers; Fallon’s just 2.44. Kimmel is just barely over the 2 million threshold.


To put that in some perspective, Jay Leno’s last appearance as host of the Tonight Show back in 2014 was viewed by 14.6 million people, according to E! News. While he was in the chair that Steve Allen built, Leno’s audience, even at low ebb, was always about twice that of Colbert’s, Fallon’s and Kimmel’s.


Probably because Leno — like Johnny before him — knew the difference between humor and ridicule. “Clinton was horny — and Bush was dumb.” They never implied their audience — America — was. Colbert, Fallon, and Kimmel do imply that. Their jokes are more like progressive homilies — tedious ones — from people who have no business giving them.
They are like the plumber who can’t fix pipes but doesn’t like your wallpaper; the roofer who doesn’t know how to shingle but wants to tell you all about his new Chevrolet; or the dentist who tries to impress you with his singing voice.It’s not what you hired them to do.


But they keep on doing it — in the case of the two Jimmies and the one Colbert — because they think the laugh track in the audience is actual laughter and because their fellow lib celebs clap them on the back after the show and tell them hurrah! for pointing out that Trump stinks one more time.


But outside the studio — beyond the Beltway — one increasingly only hears the sound of left-hand clapping.

A.J. Rice is CEO of Publius PR, a premiere millennial-owned communications firm in Washington D.C. Rice is a brand manager, star-whisperer and media influencer, who has produced or promoted Laura Ingraham, Judge Jeanine Pirro, Monica Crowley, Charles Krauthammer, Steve Hilton, Victor Davis Hanson, Anthony Scaramucci, David Bossie, and many others. Find out more at publiuspr.com

Nordic countries facts

The following is from a report that is coming out soon.

In a report by JP Morgan, Michael Cembalest reviewed the Nordic country and found that Nordic country are hardly socialistic even though they do have a robust welfare state. Cembalest noted “On many measures, the Nordic approach to the private sector is even more business-friendly than the US.”  That includes business freedom, starting new businesses, property rights protection, and free trade. 

Cembalest added, “Another sign that Nordic countries are not following a democratic socialist model: Nordic “state control” is similar to US levels.  As part of its assessment of competitive forces, the OECD analyzes the extent of state control and government regulation.  One method shows that Nordic governments exercise even less state control over the economy than the US, while another shows that over time, government regulation affecting competition in critical network sectors in Nordic countries has converged to US levels.  Either way, it’s clear from this data that the state control principles of democratic socialism (i.e., replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production) are very much at odds with the Nordic free-market model.”

On tax policies, corporate and income tax rates are not much different than the United States, especially if you combined many States income tax in the United States along with the Federal income tax rates.  Cembalest noted, “Note how corporate taxes contribute just 2%-3% of GDP in both the Nordics and the US, and how little Nordic countries rely on taxing capital gains of individuals, regardless of income levels.  Finally, some Nordic estate tax rates are actually zero, with an average of 11% compared to US estate tax rates of 40%” Nordic countries biggest taxes are through VAT’s and payroll taxes and much of this is hit the Middle Class. The Nordic country do spend more on social Welfare State, but their economy is dependent upon not killing the golden goose that support the system, the private sector. 

The Case against Omar

Did Omar commit tax and immigration fraud? You decide. From Powerlineblog

DAVID STEINBERG: TYING UP LOOSE THREADS IN THE CURIOUS CASE

In four intensely reported investigative columns — here (August 13, 2018), here (October 23, 2018), here (October 30, 2018), and here (November 5, 2018), — David Steinberg has explored the evidence suggesting that Ilhan Omar entered into a sham marriage with her brother in 2009. This is his fifth. He titles it “Meet Leila Elmi: The Missing Link Showing Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother.” Drawing on his research, interviews, and social media evidence he makes the case that Omar has engaged in a variety of fraudulent activities and willful misrepresentations related to her marital arrangements. He writes:

On October 22, 2008, the U.S. State Department stopped accepting applications for the Priority 3/Refugee Family Reunification program — the process by which refugees can apply for asylum if one family member is already a legal U.S. resident. State halted the program because DNA testing — primarily of Somalis — had concluded that perhaps 87 percent of applicants were fraudulently claiming family relationships.

Despite continuing war, Somalia of 2008 was not comparable to the open hell of the early 1990s, when an eight-year-old Ilhan and her family fled to Kenya’s Dadaab refugee camps. She lived there from 1991 until 1995, aged eight to 12. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services then helped Ilhan, her sister Sahra, and their father Nur Said receive asylum in the United States along with thousands of other Somalis.

The complicated moral question of fraud, let alone fault, among this 1990s wave of refugees escaping civil war will never be answered with accurate statistics. We will have to settle for adjectives like “widespread” and “rampant.” Yet the negative outcomes cannot be ignored. Even refugees with strong desire to assimilate with Western civic order are hampered by the possible discovery of conflicting documents. And compromising information becomes leverage in a community already difficult to police.

Twelve-year-old Ilhan had no say on the manner in which she arrived in the United States.

However, U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (D-MN) is now under scrutiny for acts she took beginning in 2009 — not 1995. In 2009, Omar was a 26-year-old U.S. citizen. She had been a U.S. citizen for nearly nine years.

Additionally, the foreign national Omar apparently helped commit fraud was not fleeing hell in 2009, either. Ahmed Nur Said Elmi was a long-time citizen of the United Kingdom. He even possessed a high school diploma from the United States: Elmi attended a St. Paul, Minnesota high school for his senior year of 2002-2003, and graduated before returning to London.

We look to 1995 not to incriminate a kid, but to answer questions about what Omar did 14 years later as an adult U.S. citizen.

Please read the verified evidence below — and read it alongside the three years of verified evidence published by Scott Johnson, Preya Samsundar, and myself (our work is linked here). The answers to those questions about 2009 appear to give probable cause to investigate Omar for eight instances of perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, up to eight years of state and federal tax fraud, two years of federal student loan fraud, and even bigamy.

To be clear: The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.

———————-

The preceding information was given to me by multiple sources within the Minneapolis Somali community. The verifiable evidence corroborating their information follows below:

In 1995, Ilhan entered the United States as a fraudulent member of the “Omar” family.

That is not her family. The Omar family is a second, unrelated family which was being granted asylum by the United States. The Omars allowed Ilhan, her genetic sister Sahra, and her genetic father Nur Said to use false names to apply for asylum as members of the Omar family.

Ilhan’s genetic family split up at this time. The above three received asylum in the United States, while Ilhan’s three other siblings — using their real names — managed to get asylum in the United Kingdom.

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar’s name, before applying for asylum, was Ilhan Nur Said Elmi.

Her father’s name before applying for asylum was Nur Said Elmi Mohamed. Her sister Sahra Noor’s name before applying for asylum was Sahra Nur Said Elmi. Her three siblings who were granted asylum by the United Kingdom are Leila Nur Said Elmi, Mohamed Nur Said Elmi, and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

Ilhan and Ahmed married in 2009, presumably to benefit in some way from a fraudulent marriage. They did not divorce until 2017.

Above: This chart summarizes how multiple sources in the Minneapolis Somali community describe key events in the life of MN Representative Ilhan Abdullahi Omar — whom these sources state was born as “Ilhan Nur Said Elmi.”

———————-

Confirming some of the above information, as it might appear on their 1995 U.S. immigration papers, is not difficult. A basic background search shows that “Nur Omar Mohamed,” “Ilhan Abdullahi Omar,” and “Sahra Noor” all received SSNs in 1995 or 1996 in Virginia. Verified address records show adult members of the Omars living at three addresses in Arlington, Virginia at that time: 1223 South Thomas Street, 1226 South Thomas Street, and 1107 South Thomas Street.

The United Kingdom records of the relevant individuals are similarly easy to find. Try with a simple Ancestry.com account and similar online tools: There appears to be only one “Leila Nur Said Elmi,” only one “Mohamed Nur Said Elmi,” and only one “Ahmed Nur Said Elmi” in the UK.

The remaining evidence below verifies a sibling relationship between Ilhan and Ahmed.

————————

Sahra Noor is the only person Ilhan Omar has ever publicly identified as her sister. Ilhan and Sahra have also, publicly and often, referred to the same man as their father. And, per Preya Samsundar’s 2016 investigation, they both identified this man as “Nur Said”:

The above image, a screenshot of Sahra Noor’s confirmed Facebook account, was first published by Preya Samsundar in 2016.

He also identifies himself as “Nur Said”.

See below — this is a screenshot of his current Facebook account. As of this article’s publication, it is active and searchable by anyone online. (I have archived his page with archive.is):

Note this thumbnail of “Leyla Cilmi,” listed as a friend of Nur Said.

In 2018, as I published a series of articles investigating Ilhan’s past, this account name changed from “Leila Elmi” to “Leyla Cilmi.”

However, the URL did not change. It still refers to “leila.elmi”:

Below, see the 1997 marriage certificate for the only Leila Nur Said Elmi listed in the United Kingdom.

I retrieved this certified copy from a government records center in London in February of this year; note the date in the document’s lower right corner. This is a public record. Anyone can retrieve this document to verify its authenticity.

See that Leila attests to her father’s name being “Nur Said Elmi”:

So far, we have verifiable evidence that Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, Sahra Noor, and Leila Nur Said Elmi referring to their respective fathers as “Nur Said” or “Nur Said Elmi.”

Next, we have verifiable evidence showing the three are sisters, and are all referring to the same man.
——————–

See below: These two posts appeared on Ilhan Omar’s confirmed Instagram account in 2013 and 2015, respectively. (Instagram user “hameey” became the blue-checked “IlhanMN” account at some point in 2016. A cursory search through older posts on the “IlhanMN” account still reveals many instances of commenters addressing “IlhanMN” as “hameey.”)

In August 2016 — after Scott Johnson and Preya Samsundar originally broke the story about Ilhan’s curious marriage — the below post disappeared from Ilhan Omar’s Instagram account.

However, a source within the Minneapolis Somali community had downloaded much of Omar’s Instagram account before posts were deleted.

The source recently reviewed these two deleted posts, recognized their significance, and sent them to me via email. I made these emails available to Power Line to confirm how I received these posts, and to confirm that this particular source had provided several other pieces of information that had proven authentic and verifiable:

You are looking at what appears to be Leila Elmi, Nur Said, and Ilhan Omar — together. According to Ilhan, they are pictured on an August 2011 trip to East Africa.

Now, see below: You are looking at what appears to be Leila Elmi in white, Ilhan in black, and Ilhan’s amazing caption in red:

Further, the above post, with the #londontrip hashtag, depicts Ilhan Omar’s infamous 2015 trip to the UK. This is the same trip on which Ilhan was photographed with Ahmed Nur Said Elmi himself:

Below, see one more piece of evidence establishing Leila Elmi as Ilhan’s sister. This post is currently live, and I have archived it.

In December 2016, Ilhan reported that she was harassed by a cab driver while in Washington, D.C. attending meetings. She claimed that the cab driver called her “ISIS” and threatened to remove her hijab. A few days later, Ilhan filed a report with the D.C. Department of For-Hire Vehicles and the D.C. Office of Human Rights.

Ilhan initially stated that she was accompanied in the cab by her “sister.” A Star Tribune reporter in 2016 claimed to have a copy of her complaint, and that it stated she had been in the cab with her sister.

I few months ago, I received a copy of Ilhan’s report via FOIA request. The description of the person Ilhan had been in the cab with was redacted.

Suleiman Axoow, per his profile, is a frequent host of social events for the Washington, D.C. Somali-American community. On December 9, 2016, Suleiman Axoow stated that he was with Ilhan soon after the cab incident:

On Wednesday night I had an opportunity to have dinner with State Representative-Elect Ilhan Omar & her lovely sis Leila Elmi …

Check the “Edit History” on Suleiman’s Axoow’s post. He even initially included a link to the Leila Elmi/Leyla Cilmi account:

It is not plausible to believe that Axoow simply made a mistake.

One would have to believe that Axoow:

  1. Had dinner with Ilhan and a second woman;
  2. that the woman was introduced to him as any other person alive;
  3. and that a couple days later he made the 1-in-7-billion mistake of misremembering this woman as Ilhan Omar’s “lovely sis Leila Elmi.” A random name of a woman from England he has no clear reason to know.

Ilhan has steadfastly refused to give media the names of any of her siblings besides Sahra Noor. The only rational explanation: Leila Elmi was in the United States to visit Ilhan Omar, attended this dinner with her, and Ilhan (carelessly?) introduced her as Axoow describes.

We now have verifiable evidence that Ilhan Omar, Sahra Noor, and Leila Elmi are siblings with a father named Nur Said Elmi.

All that remains is to verify our sources’ claims that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi is indeed Leila Nur Said Elmi’s brother.

————————-

We have a great, easy start: Leila and Ahmed already appear to be two of the only three “Nur Said Elmis” in the United Kingdom.

Next, view the marriage certificate again: It attests that Leila Nur Said Elmi lived in Camden, a borough of London, in 1997, and that she was 24 years old at the time.

Ahmed Nur Said Elmi was 12 in 1997. Per his own admission, he attended a school in Camden for students aged 11 to 18: Haverstock School. (See its address here; “Camden” is in the school’s URL: https://www.haverstock.camden.sch.uk/.)

This link on Ahmed’s confirmed Facebook account is currently live, and I have archived the page:

(Note that he lists his current location as “Nairobi, Kenya.” See here for definitive evidencethat Ahmed has recently been working in Nairobi with — of all people — Sahra Noor.)

Back in August 2016, Preya Samsundar posted two finds now worth revisiting:

  1. Ahmed Nur Said Elmi’s Instagram post calling two young twin girls with a backpack from a primary school in Camden his “nieces.” Ilhan’s Instagram account “loved” the post.
  2. Ilhan’s Instagram post picturing herself with the same twin girls. Ilhan marked her location as “Camden Lock Village.” Ilhan also calls the girls “her nieces.” The post is yet another that is tagged #londontrip from 2015.

The twin girls are, indeed, the daughters of Leila Nur Said Elmi. This can be confirmed by anyone through posts that are currently active on Mohamed Nur Said Elmi’s Facebook account.

We now have verifiable evidence that:Sahra Noor, Ilhan Omar, and Leila Elmi are siblings with a father named Nur Said Elmi.Leila Elmi and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi both lived in the same neighborhood of London, and know each other.Both Ilhan Omar and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi call Leila Elmi’s children “nieces.”

——————–

Earlier this year, a source gave me one more piece of information that would inform UK law enforcement — if granted a warrant — where to locate conclusive proof that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi married his sister Ilhan Omar.

Ahmed Nur Said Elmi apparently arrived in the United Kingdom in 1995 or 1996, only 10 or 11 years old, without a parent. Who looked after him until he arrived in the United States in 2002?

According to my sources, it was Leila.

There is no adoption record (which can be public in the UK); it would have been a “Kinship Care” or “Family and Friends Carer” arrangement. I am advised that Haverstock School would have records of student Ahmed Nur Said Elmi living at the same address as Leila Elmi with her listed as his guardian.

However, these two very recent posts — currently active on Instagram and archived — already put a nice bow on everything. Here are Leila and Ahmed calling each other “mum” and “son”:

—————-

On August 10, 2017, Ilhan swore under penalty of perjury — literally, she signed a half-inch or so under “penalty of perjury” — that she’d had zero contact with Ahmed Nur Said Elmi after June 2011.

Further, Ilhan swore that she did not know where to find him, and that she did not know a single person who was likely to know his whereabouts. She did this to apply for a default divorce from Ahmed — a divorce where one spouse cannot be located and served.

Now, a tremendous amount of evidence — from this article and our prior articles — shows that Ilhan perhaps perjured herself eight times with her nine answers. Minnesota’s perjury statute allows for a sentence of up to five years — for each instance:

Yet this may be the least worrisome of her current legal exposures.

Consider the disturbingly inadequate evidence used to obtain FISA warrants on members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Consider that Democratic representatives have demanded that Attorney General William Barr release grand jury testimony — itself an illegal act.

Yet here we have:

  • Verifiable UK and U.S. marriage records
  • Verifiable address records
  • Time-stamped, traceable, archived online communications (Convictions and settlements based upon social media evidence are commonplace, Anthony Weiner being a notable example)
  • Background check confirmations of SSNs and birthdates
  • Archived court documents signed under penalty of perjury
  • Photos which can be examined to rule out digital manipulation
  • The 2019 Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board investigation, which found Omar filed illegal joint tax returns with a man who was not her husband in at least 2014 and 2015
  • Three years’ of evidence published across many articles — none of which has been shown to be incorrect, or have even been challenged with contradictory evidence from Rep. Omar or any other source
  • Perjury evidence that stands on its own — regardless of whom she married:
    • Long after June 2011, she was clearly in contact with the only man in either the U.S. or the UK with the same name and birthdate as the man she married. She was clearly in contact with several people who were in contact with him.
    • Further, Preya Samsundar did contact him, published how she managed to contact him, and published his email admitting to being photographed with Omar in London in 2015. To be clear: Omar was legally married to an “Ahmed Nur Said Elmi” at the time she was photographed next to a man who admits his name is Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, and that he is in the photo.
    • Samsundar published all of this information on how to contact Ahmed Nur Said Elmi a few months before Omar swore to that nine-question court document.
  • Rep. Omar has refused all inquiries from her constituents, elected officials, and media outlets to provide any specific evidence contradicting even a single allegation suggested by three years of now-public information.
  • In fact, Omar has responded by making information less available:
    • In August 2016, after Scott Johnson and Preya Samsundar posted the allegations, Omar’s verified social media accounts were taken offline.
    • Ahmed Nur Said Elmi’s social media accounts were also taken offline.
    • When the accounts returned, a large amount of potentially incriminating evidence had verifiably been deleted.
    • I found and published at least ten additional “before and after” instances of evidence still being deleted in 2018.
  • Omar has released carefully worded, Clintonian statements that denigrate those seeking answers from her as racists. Yet she has repeatedly refused to answer questions or issue anything other than public relations statements.
  • I have a large amount of information that we have not published for reasons including the protection of sources.

I believe Scott Johnson, Preya Samsundar, and me, with our three years of articles, columns and posts, have provided more than enough evidence to give law enforcement authorities probable cause to open an investigation. Now would be the chance for law enforcement, and especially for Rep. Ilhan Omar’s House colleagues, to make a sincere stand against corruption and for the uniform application of the law.

David Steinberg was New York City Editor at PJMedia from 2009-2019, primarily handling coverage of Israel, homeland security, and political corruption. His investigation of Eric Cantor’s 2014 primary campaign is credited (ask Dave Brat!) with tipping the historic loss, perhaps the beginning of the “Trump Era.” As noted above, since 2018 Steinberg has published several articles of exclusive evidence covering Rep. Ilhan Omar’s past; they can be accessed here: https://bit.ly/2FJq529.

Follow David Steinberg on Twitter: https://twitter.com/realDSteinberg

Larry Fedewa on foreign policy

There has been a strain of missionary zeal in American foreign policy since the colonial days and it raises its head every once in a while even today. Perhaps it is the shadow of our Puritan heritage . On the one hand, the moral dilemma of slavery has poisoned our national conscience since the beginning and still haunts us today even after we suffered an estimated 650,000 casualties in the most costly war in our history in an effort to right this wrong. On the other hand, Americans have felt constrained to “save the world for democracy” through the foreign wars of the 20th century and the challenges of Islamic terrorism in our own time.


The belief that “America is the last, best hope for freedom”, as President Reagan put it, has formed one of the foundations of our foreign policy for the past 100 years. That belief carried us into two world wars and all the nearly constant stream of wars ever since, in Asia, Europe and the Middle East. It has defined “America’s place in the world order” as the advocate and defender of personal freedom and at least some form of social justice. It has also established the USA as the underwriter of all these efforts in both blood and treasure.


The doctrine of “America first” is seen by the foreign policy establishment both here and abroad not as a modification but rather as a rejection of America’s mission in world history. Properly understood, however, America first is not a rejection of this internationalism because it also assumes that every other country will – and does – put its own interests first. In this calculus, the issue becomes “what is America’s interest?” The conclusion of the Trump doctrine is that America has a national debt of $22 Trillion and can no longer afford to bear the nearly entire cost of the elaborate military structure which we created during the Cold War. This does not seem unreasonable in view of the fact that the members of our alliances in Europe and Asia are in general wealthy enough to support their own defense.
The rub is that most of these countries are governed by some form of socialism and thus their costs are very high compared to the USA. Many have significant national debts of their own. This in addition to the fact that no one wants to give up a free ride voluntarily. So what leverage does the USA have to counter this resistance? The obvious threat is that freeloaders will no longer be welcome in the alliance. As far as we know, no one has suggested such an action, but the fact is that this is an implicit sanction. The Joe Biden’s of the world – along with many others – consider this approach heresy. It goes against the received wisdom of the post-war policies which won the Cold War.


There are strange reactions among our “allies”. For example, the purpose of NATO is the defense of Europe against possible invasion by Russia. To support that policy, the USA has stationed 10,000 troops and billions of dollars’ worth of equipment in Germany – mostly funded by US taxpayers – since 1946. Germany now imports about 40% of its natural gas and 30% of its coal from Russia. To augment this supply chain, Germany has agreed to let Russia build the Nord Stream Pipeline for natural gas. This will increase the dependence of Germany on Russia for natural gas – extent unknown. The impact of this move is that, in case of war – or the threat of war – Germany might well be held hostage by the shut-off of all Russian energy exports. This in direct defiance of US objections. This act calls into question the very essence of NATO.


Another example is the French entertaining a proposal to “go it alone”, and drop out of NATO, thus reviving Charles De Gaulle’s longtime refusal to join NATO in the first place. Along with the UK, Germany and France are the largest members of NATO. President Trump has been widely criticized by the establishment for alienating our allies. But, if the Germans and the French are willing to dump NATO, one wonders why we are spending all this money to keep it going?


The bottom line is simply this: every country takes actions based on its perception of its own interests. For the Americans to do the same thing is only common sense. It is time that America faces reality and acts in the interests of the American people – not the so-called mission to save the world for freedom or any other such idealistic, and unrealistic, goal – no matter how worthy it sounds. Time to put America first! © 2019 Richfield Press, LLC. All rights reserved.

Left view on populism

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/04/meet-the-anti-woke-left/amp/

Million dollar quote number one from authors: ‘The biggest divide in American society is class and that’s it. I’m a class-first person’, she tells me. ‘You’re hearing in the election how much we need to elect a woman or we need to elect a woman of colour. But the most left-wing candidate is an old, white, heterosexual man [Bernie Sanders] and I want him to win… I’m a Bernie bro. I was a Bernie bro in 2016 and I am now.’

Million dollar quote number two: ‘There are two categories of Trump voters worth discussing separately’, says Frost. ‘There was the wealthy, petit-bourgeois reactionary. But there were also working-class people who heard only one of the candidates talking about jobs.’

Million dollar quote number three:

‘Do you want to tell people how bad they are? Do you want them to repent because they’re bad racists? Or do you want them to pursue a left-wing project?’

‘Those people are ours to win’, says Frost. The populist moment is an opportunity, she says, but one which ‘I can totally see us pissing away’. ‘The self-identified left are very sceptical of the populist stuff. Look at their takes on the yellow vests: “They’re all fascists!” They’re probably just fucking French people – and who can tell the difference?’


These two individuals from the Spike interview understand the political dynamic.

From our report on the difference between Le Pen and Trump

” Le Pen is not Trump and while both are protectionists, there are differences beginning with the crucial fact that Trump actually likes capitalism whereas Le Pen is suspicious of capitalism. Trump is fighting the administrative state and looking to reduce taxes on both individual and businesses, Le Pen seeks to increase taxes on individual and businesses as part of her economic nationalism. Trump for all his bravado is not a racist and, as mentioned before, the number of illegals allowed to stay after his reforms are passed will be similar to what we presently see. Le Pen is anti-immigration, anti-capitalist and anti-free trade, the trifecta of bad economic policies. What Le Pen is a big government nationalist who will use government largess to benefit her supporters. Le Pen is the warning of what could happen in the United States if Trump policies are strangled in the womb by Democratic resistance: A developed populist movement that could drag 35% of Republicans and high percentage of Sanders’ supporter into a national populist big government policy in which Liberty dies a slow death. ” http://amermaj.org/pdf//Trump-LePen.pdf