Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2ihVQGgT. COM.
Thurs., Oct.19, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave All~God Bless America
Will The Alexander-Murray Health ‘Deal’ Fund Abortion Coverage?
Unless the agreement forbids it, the significant sums in play would represent the second-largest expansion of federal abortion funding, behind only Obamacare itself.
By Christopher Jacobs
Amidst the rumored press reports about what the supposed “insurer stabilization bill” negotiated between Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) may contain, one Twitter commenter made an astute observation: Unless the agreement contained explicit language forbidding it—language Murray likely would not endorse—the agreement will appropriate approximately $25-30 billion to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortion.
That fact alone should give conservatives pause. Coming on a week when Senate Republican leaders seek to pass a budget precluding another attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, the Alexander-Murray deal would not only fail to advance the pro-life cause, it would, by extending subsidies to insurers who cover abortions, actively undermine it.
Follow the Money
Here’s some background regarding federal restrictions on abortion funding. The Hyde Amendment, named for former Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), prohibits federal funding of abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
However, this restriction, first enacted in 1976 and renewed every year thereafter, only applies to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appropriations bill to which it is attached annually. If funding flows outside the HHS appropriations measure, those funds would not be subject to the Hyde restrictions, and could therefore subsidize abortion coverage.
Obamacare contained just such funds—for instance, the premium tax credits used to subsidize plans on insurance exchanges. While Obamacare includes a “segregation mechanism” designed to separate the portion of premium payments used to cover abortion, pro-life groups have recognized this mechanism as an accounting gimmick—one the Obama administration didn’t even bother to enforce.
Is Hyde Language Added?
Obamacare included other funding that recipients could use for abortion coverage. Section 10503 of the law appropriated $9.5 billion for community health centers from 2010 through 2015. Because the legislation made such funding mandatory—that is, appropriated federal tax dollars outside the annual HHS spending bill to which the Hyde Amendment applies—recipients of that $9.5 billion could have used the federal dollars to fund abortions.
When extending the community health center funding as part of a larger Medicare bill in spring 2015, Republican leaders recognized the lack of pro-life protections, and insisted on adding them to extend the mandatory health center funding. As a result, Section 221(c) of the bill (page 68 here) said that the same requirements that applied to other Public Health Service Act funding provisions—that is, the Hyde Amendment funding restrictions—would also apply to the community health center funding.
However, if Alexander does not explicitly add the Hyde Amendment protections to the “stabilization bill,” the cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers will be used to fund plans that cover abortion. There is little reason to believe Murray would endorse such a restriction. If the Hyde Amendment restrictions apply to the cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers, then in order to receive said payments, it is likely insurers would have to stop offering abortion coverage on exchanges—an outcome Murray, and Democrats, would not wish to countenance.
Massive Funding Amounts
The “stabilization bill” would likely seek to provide massive funding amounts to insurers—roughly $3 to $4 billion for the rest of this calendar year, and $10 to $11 billion for each of years 2018 and 2019, based on Congressional Budget Office spending estimates. These significant sums would surely represent the second-largest expansion of federal abortion funding, behind only Obamacare itself.
Some conservatives may therefore have concerns that this “stabilization bill” would violate pro-life principles, and insist on included pro-life language as a necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) requirement for their support of the legislation. Given that House and Senate Republican leaders demanded and received Hyde protections regarding community health center funding two years ago, under a Democratic president, conservatives should demand—and receive—no less with a Republican in the White House.
Jacobs is founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, a policy consulting firm based in Washington. He's on Twitter @chrisjacobshc.
A CNN Smear
John Stossel
Did you happen to catch CNN's latest smear?
Anderson Cooper's show recently featured a "two-part exclusive" that claims Donald Trump's EPA director had conspired with the CEO of a mining company to "withdraw environmental restrictions" so the company could dig "the largest open pit mine in the world in an extremely sensitive watershed in wild Alaska."
The report was enough to horrify any caring person. CNN showed beautiful pictures of colorful salmon swimming in Bristol Bay, and the reporter intoned dramatically, "EPA staffers were shocked to receive this email obtained exclusively by CNN which says 'we have been directed by the administrator to withdraw restrictions' ... (P)rotection of that pristine area was being removed."
No! A "pristine" area and gorgeous salmon were about to be obliterated by a mine!
I would have believed it, except I happened to report on that mine a couple of years ago.
I knew that the real scandal was not EPA director Scott Pruitt's decision to "withdraw the restrictions"; it was what President Obama's EPA did to the company's mining proposal in the first place.
Zealots at the EPA had conspired with rich environmental activists to kill the mine before its environmental impact statement could even be submitted. This was unprecedented.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform later concluded: "EPA employees had inappropriate contact with outside groups and failed to conduct an impartial, fact-based review."
Now, appropriately, Pruitt undid that censorship of science.
But CNN, implying devious secrecy said, "according to multiple sources, he made that decision without a briefing from any of EPA's scientists."
Shocking!
But Pruitt didn't require opinions from scientists. He didn't approve the mine. He didn't make a science decision. He simply followed the law and allowed a company to submit a proposal.
Also, despite CNN's repeated depictions of salmon on Bristol Bay, it turns out that the proposed mine would not even be on the Bay. It would not even be 10 miles away, or 20 miles away, or even 50 miles. The proposed mine would be about 100 miles away.
Did CNN mention that? No. Never. We asked CNN why. And why not point out that the mining company is just being allowed to start the EPA's long and arduous environmental review? They didn't get back to us.
Of course, explaining that wouldn't fit CNN's theme: Evil Trump appointee ravages environment.
Their reporter did at least speak with the mine's CEO, Tom Collier, who tried to explain.
"It's not a science -- it's a process decision."
But the reporter, Drew Griffin, wouldn't budge. He called Collier "a guy who wants to mine gold in an area that many scientists believe will destroy one of the most pristine sockeye salmon sporting grounds in the whole world."
By the way, Collier isn't an evil Republican-businessman-nature-destroyer. He's a Democrat who once ran environment policy for President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. CNN never mentioned that either.
Instead, the reporter implied evil collusion: "This looks like the head of a gold mine went to a new administrator and got him to reverse what an entire department had worked on for years."
Here at least the report was accurate. Obama's environmental department did try to kill that mine for years. They colluded with groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of America's wealthiest environment groups.
The NRDC is mostly made up of anti-progress lawyers who want no mines built anywhere. Don't believe me? I asked NRDC spokesman Bob Deans:
STOSSEL: There are some mines where NRDC says, great, go ahead?
DEANS: It's not up to us.
STOSSEL: Are there any?
DEANS: It's not up to us to green light mines…
STOSSEL: Are there any you don't complain about?
DEANS: Yeah, sure.
DEANS: It's not up to us.
STOSSEL: Are there any?
DEANS: It's not up to us to green light mines…
STOSSEL: Are there any you don't complain about?
DEANS: Yeah, sure.
So I asked him for some names. He and the NRDC still haven't provided any.
If these zealots and their sycophants in the media get their way, America will become a place with no mining, no pipelines, no oil drilling, no new ... anything.
The acronym used to make fun of anti-development attitudes used to be NIMBY -- Not In My Back Yard. Now it's BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody.
Bob Weinstein Accused of Sexual Harassment by TV Showrunner
CREDIT: BEI/REX/SHUTTERSTOCK
A female showrunner who worked on the Weinstein Co. drama “The Mist” has accused Bob Weinstein of sexual harassment during the production of the Spike TV series.
Amanda Segel, an executive producer of “Mist,” said Weinstein repeatedly made romantic overtures to her and asked her to join him for private dinners. The harassment began in the summer of 2016 and continued on and off for about three months until Segel’s lawyer, David Fox of Myman Greenspan, informed TWC executives — including COO David Glasser — that she would leave the show if Bob Weinstein did not stop contacting her on personal matters.
“ ‘No’ should be enough,” Segel told Variety. “After ‘no,’ anybody who has asked you out should just move on. Bob kept referring to me that he wanted to have a friendship. He didn’t want a friendship. He wanted more than that. My hope is that ‘no’ is enough from now on.”
A representative for Bob Weinstein denied that he engaged in any inappropriate behavior in a statement to Variety.
“Bob Weinstein had dinner with Ms. Segel in LA in June 2016. He denies any claims that he behaved inappropriately at or after the dinner. It is most unfortunate that any such claim has been made,” the statement said.
Bert Fields, a lawyer for Bob Weinstein, also issued a strong denial on Weinstein’s behalf.
“Variety’s story about Bob Weinstein is riddled with false and misleading assertions by Ms. Segel and we have the emails to prove it, but even if you believe what she says it contains not a hint of any inappropriate touching or even any request for such touching,” Fields said. “There is no way in the world that Bob Weinstein is guilty of sexual harassment, and even if you believed what this person asserts there is no way it would amount to that.”
A rep for the Weinstein Co. denied that Glasser was contacted by Segel’s lawyer, a source close to Glasser said in fact the COO had communicated with Segel but his involvement in addressing the situation was minimal.
Spike TV in a statement said: “We take all allegations of this nature very seriously, and are investigating.”
Segel’s revelation about her experience with Bob Weinstein comes on the heels of explosive allegations of sexual assault and harassment by his older brother and longtime business partner, Harvey Weinstein. More than 30 women have come forward with allegations that paint a pattern of behavior by Harvey Weinstein as a serial sexual predator. The scandal resulted in Harvey Weinstein being fired by the board of the Weinstein Co. and has sent the company into a tailspin, with creative partners and networks working to distance themselves from the company.
Meanwhile, this week, Bob Weinstein has publicly decried his brother’s actions and claimed that he was unaware of the severity of the allegations, which include at least two allegations of rape. But the disclosure from Segel raises serious questions about Bob Weinstein’s comportment with female colleagues. Segel’s experience on “The Mist” left her shaken and angry.
The intense media focus on disturbing allegations surrounding Harvey Weinstein sparked renewed frustration for Segel. She knows from previous experience that sexual harassment and discrimination against female writers is widespread in television. After much consideration of the potential risk to her career, Segel decided to go public with her Bob Weinstein experience in an effort to help raise awareness of the extra burden that women often face and to encourage the industry to put a stop to behavior that has too often been seen as part and parcel of the high-pressure business of producing a TV show.
Segel’s discomfort with Bob Weinstein began in June 2016 when he invited her out to dinner in Los Angeles, at Dan Tana’s restaurant. Segel had been told by coworkers that Bob Weinstein had inquired with them whether she was single. She agreed to go to dinner with him in an effort to establish a professional relationship with the head of the company behind “The Mist.”
During the dinner, Weinstein asked Segel highly intimate questions and made romantic overtures to her, according to Segel. He wanted to know her age because he told her he didn’t want to date anyone younger than his daughter. He told Segel that he was staying at the Beverly Hills Hotel because his daughter was staying at his home in Los Angeles.
About halfway through the dinner, Weinstein asked Segel if she would drive him back to the hotel so that he could let his driver go for the night. Segel agreed. When she took him to the Sunset Boulevard hotel, he asked her to come up to his room. She declined.
After that night, Weinstein began sending emails to Segel with questions that were outside the scope of work on “The Mist.” He said he wanted them to be friends. She said that was possible but in a non romantic way, and reiterated that she was not open to dating.
In a scenario that echoes some of the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Segel asserts that during this period Bob Weinstein invited her to a house he’d rented in Malibu for a party. When he called Segel to tell her the address of the house, she gathered that it was not a party but an invitation for the two of them to be alone. She did not attend.
Bob Weinstein continued to ask Segel out to dinner between June and August of 2016 joking at times that he was her boss and could fire her if she didn’t agree. Segel agreed to another dinner with him in which she was accompanied by “Mist” executive producer and writer Christian Torpe. Weinstein was clearly unhappy with Torpe’s presence at the dinner, according to Segel.
Eventually, Weinstein stopped the unwanted attention toward Segel. During a notes conference call with network executives about the show, Segel says Weinstein became angry and screamed at Segel over a production issue that she says was out of her control. When questioned about the outburst by others on the call, Segel expressed her view that she had been sexually harassed by Weinstein for three months. After that incident, Segel had her lawyer contact TWC executives with the ultimatum that she would leave the show if Weinstein did not stay away from her.
After much back and forth between Segel, her lawyer and TWC executives, an agreement was reached that Segel would continue her work on the show but arrangements were made that she was never to be in the same room as Weinstein or on telephone calls with him, an agreement that was honored by Weinstein. It was also agreed that TWC would let Segel out of its option to keep her on the show if it was picked up for a second season.
Fox declined to comment, citing “the possibility of litigation involving the Weinstein Company.”
“The Mist,” a fantasy thriller based on the Stephen King novella, had a 10-episode run that wrapped in August. The show was not renewed by Spike TV for a second season.
At present, Segel is working on a new series, in a work environment she described as pleasantly low-key, and focused on developing her own projects.
Most College Students Clueless About the First Amendment
Last week at Columbia University, conservative pundit Tommy Robinson attempted to give a speech on mass immigration in Europe. Instead, the event devolved into chaos. Students consistently shouted down Robinson, effectively preventing him from speaking as he Skyped into the campus auditorium from the United Kingdom. He gave up on trying to speak and instead fielded questions from protesters.
“This is our free speech, this is our First Amendment right,” repeated some of the protesters as they shouted over Robinson.
It was clear that many students had a warped understanding of the First Amendment.
To be fair, an argument could be made that, because Robinson spoke before students at a private university, First Amendment protections might not apply. But student protesters didn’t raise the specter of that concern. Indeed, their only way of justifying their actions was to claim that they were expressing their “free speech” rights in shouting down Robinson.
That is not free speech, but in fact an abridgment of someone else’s rights.
This anti-free speech behavior is increasingly common at private and public schools alike, as documented by websites like The College Fix and Campus Reform. In an essay for National Review, public policy researcher Stanley Kurtz dubbed this the “Year of the Shout-Down.” He likewise noted that protesters tend to justify their actions with chants about the First Amendment.
Do protesters, and students at large, really understand the First Amendment?
No, they don’t. In a newly published study, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) found that only 46% of college students understand that "hate speech" is indeed protected by the First Amendment. Of the 54% of students who did not know, 29% falsely believe the First Amendment doesn’t cover hate speech, and 25% just did not know.
Further, when asked if the First Amendment should cover hate speech, nearly half (48%) said “no.”
Perhaps this isn’t a surprise, since nearly 13% of survey respondents actively associated hate speech with violence, according to FIRE.
Most of these students write that hate speech "encourages" violence against a group or individual, but some write that this speech may "incite [or] glorify violence against a group" ... a few students suggest that hate speech itself is actually a form of violence.
...
One student wrote that hate speech "constitutes violence. It goes beyond voicing an opinion about an issue and instead threatens the existence of others."
The majority of students (56%) also agree that colleges should be able to disinvite speakers after they’ve already been invited if other students object to the potential speakers' views. Not surprisingly, liberal students are significantly more likely to support a disinvitation than conservative and Republican students:
There is a 40 percentage point ideological divide in attitudes toward dis invitations: 78% of very liberal students and 38% of very conservative students support the withdrawal of a guest speaker’s invitation in some instances.
While most students admitted to supporting dis invitations, only a handful of students admitted that they might attempt to block a speech from taking place, which is what happened last week during Tommy Robinson’s speech at Columbia.
According to the study, one percent of students admitted that they might use violence to prevent a speaker from talking, two percent said they might make noise during the event, and four percent admitted that they might tear event flyers down.
The survey was based on a survey of 1,250 college students, jointly organized by FIRE and YouGov, an independent polling research firm.
Later this month, the Columbia University College Republicans will host Mike Cernovich, who intends to speak on the role that media played in the last election cycle. Led by Mistee Denson, a graduate student at Columbia, the Southern Poverty Law Center chapter at Columbia actively hopes to get the event cancelled. As Columbia University officials and the school’s First Amendment Institute have been mum about the growing hostility towards free speech on campus, it’s likely that students will try to shout down Cernovich, too.
Black Former UMd Employee Charged With Drawing a Swastika on Campus
Ashley Rae Goldenberg, @communism_kills
While hate symbols appearing on college campuses are usually met with cries of “white supremacy,” it turns out the man who drew a swastika at the University of Maryland is actually a black man.
Fox5DC reports 52-year-old Ronald Alford Sr., a black man, is currently facing charges related to the destruction of property after a painting of a swastika was found on a trash cart in a residence hall on the UMD campus on Sept. 27.
Asked how students feel that the man accused of drawing the swastika is part of a “historically oppressed minority group,” one student said, “When it happened, we all thought it was a student who went here and lived in the building, so I was kind of like, ‘I have to live here. What if he still goes here?’”
“I guess it proves that you don't have to be a certain race to hate people, but I mean, it's just you would think that someone, like, especially from a race that has been subjected to hate before, you would think, why would you want to reciprocate that to somebody else? I guess that’s the world we live in today,” she continued.
According to the Diamondback, the UMD campus newspaper, Alford is a former UMD employee.
Alford will not be allowed back on campus.
Fox5DC reports 52-year-old Ronald Alford Sr., a black man, is currently facing charges related to the destruction of property after a painting of a swastika was found on a trash cart in a residence hall on the UMD campus on Sept. 27.
Asked how students feel that the man accused of drawing the swastika is part of a “historically oppressed minority group,” one student said, “When it happened, we all thought it was a student who went here and lived in the building, so I was kind of like, ‘I have to live here. What if he still goes here?’”
“I guess it proves that you don't have to be a certain race to hate people, but I mean, it's just you would think that someone, like, especially from a race that has been subjected to hate before, you would think, why would you want to reciprocate that to somebody else? I guess that’s the world we live in today,” she continued.
According to the Diamondback, the UMD campus newspaper, Alford is a former UMD employee.
Alford will not be allowed back on campus.
Report: Officials Believe Mexican Illegals Behind Massive California Fires
BY BENJAMIN ARIE
The recent wildfires in California have caused widespread destruction and even death as they rage across many regions of the state. That situation would be dire under any circumstances, but now new information may make the fires even more shocking.
There is a strong possibility that the wildfires were set deliberately, and may be linked to drug cartels operating north of the border.
The investigative news site GotNews recently dug into the situation, and pointed out some very disturbing facts. As their report pointed out, California’s wildfires typically occur in December and January, yet the October series of fires has been among the largest and most destructive to date.
Experts quickly noticed something interesting: The fires have dramatically impacted the state’s burgeoning legal marijuana industry… and that could be the work of powerful Mexican drug syndicates.
“Law enforcement authorities – including senior Department of Homeland Security officials – and key people within the legal marijuana business quickly noticed that the areas hit hardest by the fires are the same places that California’s marijuana industry legally grows cannabis, and are now starting to suspect foul play,” explained GotNews.
“The suspicious timing and sheer destruction of the fires has led them to believe the Mexican drug cartels – infamous for their ruthless tactics – had a hand in starting them,” the independent news site continued.
“These cartels, which run a large share of the world’s multi-billion dollar illegal drug trade, certainly have the means to pull of an attack like this.”
“These cartels, which run a large share of the world’s multi-billion dollar illegal drug trade, certainly have the means to pull of an attack like this.”
That news source did not specifically name the officials who are considering this possibility, but the facts do make the scenario very likely.
Both the New York Times and NBC News have pointed out that recreational marijuana grow operations — which are legal under California law — have all but been destroyed by the flames.
On top of destruction to the actual plants, a significant amount of cash has also gone up in smoke, and the legal grey area of marijuana at the federal level means that almost nothing is insured.
“Many of the region’s farms, including those that harvest cannabis, have been scorched, including those in Sonoma County and in Mendocino County, the center of California’s marijuana industry,” reported the Times.
“Mendocino is one of three California counties that comprise Emerald Triangle, where much of the United States’ marijuana is produced,” the newspaper continued.
In other words, if the powerful Mexican cartels wanted to strike their new, legal competitors and remove them from the market, that area would be exactly where to do it.
“This couldn’t hit at a worse time because a lot of these property owners have just spent a lot of money going through the licensing process… trying to get compliant before the first of the year,” Robert Frichtel, CEO of General Cannabis Corporation, explained to NBC.
“They probably have invested with the expectation that this crop would help recoup a lot of those expenses,” he continued.
Now, much of that crop is gone… and the playing field is completely slanted back toward illegal drug syndicates in Mexico.
Marijuana legalization is of course a controversial issue, and there are no doubt some conservatives who have no problem seeing drug crops go up in flames.
However, it’s worth remembering that the state and its residents made this product legal, and one of the great parts of America’s separation of powers is that states can try different things free from endless federal mandates.
Many of the people who invested in the marijuana industry were entrepreneurs and small businessmen trying to deliver a product where there is an undeniable demand. The simple fact is that families have now lost their livelihoods and life savings because of these suspicious fires.
If the evidence continues to point to sabotage by illegal drug cartels, the state and the entire country have a very good example of why border security and law enforcement is so important.
Cartels do not stop at one product, but diversify and expand until their criminal fingers are in nearly every profitable industry. The American dream depends on a level playing field — and until violent and illegal activity is stopped, hardworking citizens are the ones who will be hurt.
Please press “Share on Facebook” if you believe border security is important, especially in light of this information!
A Truly Great Phony
Thomas Sowell|
"No," the chairman said. "I know him too -- and he is one of the truly great phonies of our time."
The man was indeed a very talented phony. He could convince almost anybody of almost anything -- provided that they were not already knowledgeable about the subject.
He had once spoken to me very authoritatively about Marxian economics, apparently unaware that I was one of the few people who had read all three volumes of Marx's "Capital," and had published articles on Marxian economics in scholarly journals.
What our glib talker was saying might have seemed impressive to someone who had never read "Capital," as most people have not. But it was complete nonsense to me.
Incidentally, he did not get the grant he applied for.
This episode came back to me recently, as I read an incisive column by Charles Krauthammer, citing some of the many gaffes in public statements by the President of the United States.
One presidential gaffe in particular gives the flavor, and suggests the reason, for many others. It involved the Falkland Islands.
Argentina has recently been demanding that Britain return the Falkland Islands, which have been occupied by Britons for nearly two centuries. In 1982, Argentina seized these islands by force, only to have British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher take the islands back by force.
With Argentina today beset by domestic problems, demanding the return of the Falklands is once again a way for Argentina's government to distract the Argentine public's attention from the country's economic and other woes.
"No," the chairman said. "I know him too -- and he is one of the truly great phonies of our time."The man was indeed a very talented phony. He could convince almost anybody of almost anything -- provided that they were not already knowledgeable about the subject.
He had once spoken to me very authoritatively about Marxian economics, apparently unaware that I was one of the few people who had read all three volumes of Marx's "Capital," and had published articles on Marxian economics in scholarly journals.
What our glib talker was saying might have seemed impressive to someone who had never read "Capital," as most people have not. But it was complete nonsense to me.
Incidentally, he did not get the grant he applied for.
This episode came back to me recently, as I read an incisive column by Charles Krauthammer, citing some of the many gaffes in public statements by the President of the United States.
One presidential gaffe in particular gives the flavor, and suggests the reason, for many others. It involved the Falkland Islands.
Argentina has recently been demanding that Britain return the Falkland Islands, which have been occupied by Britons for nearly two centuries. In 1982, Argentina seized these islands by force, only to have British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher take the islands back by force.
With Argentina today beset by domestic problems, demanding the return of the Falklands is once again a way for Argentina's government to distract the Argentine public's attention from the country's economic and other woes.
Because the Argentines call these islands "the Malvinas," rather than "the Falklands," Barack Obama decided to use the Argentine term. But he referred to them as "the Maldives."
It so happens that the Maldives are thousands of miles away from the Malvinas. The former are in the Indian Ocean, while the latter are in the South Atlantic.
Nor is this the only gross misstatement that President Obama has gotten away with, thanks to the mainstream media, which sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil when it comes to Obama.
The presidential gaffe that struck me when I heard it was Barack Obama's reference to a military corps as a military "corpse." He is obviously a man who is used to sounding off about things he has paid little or no attention to in the past. His mispronunciation of a common military term was especially revealing to someone who was once in the Marine Corps, not Marine "corpse."
Like other truly talented phonies, Barack Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people -- most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship to the facts is politically irrelevant.
A talented con man, or a slick politician, does not waste his time trying to convince knowledgeable skeptics. His job is to keep the true believers believing. He is not going to convince the others anyway.
Back during Barack Obama's first year in office, he kept repeating, with great apparent earnestness, that there were "shovel-ready" projects that would quickly provide many much-needed jobs, if only his spending plans were approved by Congress.
He seemed very convincing -- if you didn't know how long it can take for any construction project to get started, after going through a bureaucratic maze of environmental impact studies, zoning commission rulings and other procedures that can delay even the smallest and simplest project for years.
Only about a year or so after his big spending programs were approved by Congress, Barack Obama himself laughed at how slowly everything was going on his supposedly "shovel-ready" projects.
One wonders how he will laugh when all his golden promises about ObamaCare turn out to be false and a medical disaster. Or when his foreign policy fiascoes in the Middle East are climaxed by a nuclear Iran.
It so happens that the Maldives are thousands of miles away from the Malvinas. The former are in the Indian Ocean, while the latter are in the South Atlantic.
Nor is this the only gross misstatement that President Obama has gotten away with, thanks to the mainstream media, which sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil when it comes to Obama.
The presidential gaffe that struck me when I heard it was Barack Obama's reference to a military corps as a military "corpse." He is obviously a man who is used to sounding off about things he has paid little or no attention to in the past. His mispronunciation of a common military term was especially revealing to someone who was once in the Marine Corps, not Marine "corpse."
Like other truly talented phonies, Barack Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people -- most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship to the facts is politically irrelevant.
A talented con man, or a slick politician, does not waste his time trying to convince knowledgeable skeptics. His job is to keep the true believers believing. He is not going to convince the others anyway.
Back during Barack Obama's first year in office, he kept repeating, with great apparent earnestness, that there were "shovel-ready" projects that would quickly provide many much-needed jobs, if only his spending plans were approved by Congress.
He seemed very convincing -- if you didn't know how long it can take for any construction project to get started, after going through a bureaucratic maze of environmental impact studies, zoning commission rulings and other procedures that can delay even the smallest and simplest project for years.
Only about a year or so after his big spending programs were approved by Congress, Barack Obama himself laughed at how slowly everything was going on his supposedly "shovel-ready" projects.
One wonders how he will laugh when all his golden promises about ObamaCare turn out to be false and a medical disaster. Or when his foreign policy fiascoes in the Middle East are climaxed by a nuclear Iran.
Media Ignore Bombshell Bob Menendez Trial News
Network news hardly covered the judge's decision that the federal corruption case against the Democrat will proceed to a jury trial
Most news organizations ignored a federal judge’s decision on Monday to reject disgraced New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez’s request to dismiss the federal corruption case against him.
Just five days after he expressed his sympathy for Menendez’s request, U.S. District Judge William Walls dashed the Democratic senator’s hopes by allowing the case to proceed on all 14 charges against him. Menendez, who is the first sitting senator in 36 years to undergo a federal corruption trial, was indicted on bribery and corruption charges in 2015. But mainstream media networks ignored the latest development in the senator’s trial, the Media Research Center found.
Just five days after he expressed his sympathy for Menendez’s request, U.S. District Judge William Walls dashed the Democratic senator’s hopes by allowing the case to proceed on all 14 charges against him. Menendez, who is the first sitting senator in 36 years to undergo a federal corruption trial, was indicted on bribery and corruption charges in 2015. But mainstream media networks ignored the latest development in the senator’s trial, the Media Research Center found.
Judge Declines to Throw Out Menendez Bribery Charges
"In a devastating day in court for New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez Monday, a federal judge threw out the defense's motion for acquittal, which was made last Thursday when the prosecution rested its case," MRC noted. "But despite the damning development, the liberal Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) continued their utter denial of the trial's existence."
"In a devastating day in court for New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez Monday, a federal judge threw out the defense's motion for acquittal, which was made last Thursday when the prosecution rested its case," MRC noted. "But despite the damning development, the liberal Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) continued their utter denial of the trial's existence."
MRC reported that the Menendez trial's absence from Monday evening news broadcasts "was a continuation of their almost complete blackout of the Democrat's corruption charges." CBS aired a brief segment "lasting a mere few seconds," but neither ABC nor NBC broached the topic on their evening news shows.
"Instead of covering the corruption trial of a Democrat, or how his Democratic colleagues were still donating money to re-elect him, the Big Three Networks were praising infamous NFL [quarterback] Colin Kaepernick for suing the NFL with claims of collusion to keep him out of a job," Nicholas Fondacaro of MRC wrote.
Press remain loath to cover proceedings against New Jersey senator indicted on bribery chargesMenendez has been accused of wielding his political power and influence on behalf of his close friend, Florida ophthalmologist Dr. Salomon Melgen, by dissuading the Department of Health and Human Services from moving to collect the more than $8 million that Melgen had overbilled Medicare. In a separate court case in West Palm Beach, Florida, in April, Melgen was convicted on 67 counts of Medicare fraud, for bilking the government out of as much as $105 million. It is the biggest Medicare fraud case in U.S. history.
Prosecutors say that in exchange for his favors — which also included pressuring State Department employees to grant visas for three of Melgen's girlfriends — Menendez pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions and personal trips, including a week-long trip to Paris and several trips to the Dominican Republic aboard a private plane.
Menendez and his defense team had hoped to get the case against him thrown out because of a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowly tailored the legal definition of "public corruption" charges. The defense argued that the new definition undermined the so-called "stream of benefits" theory that labels pertinent long-term patterns of actions as "bribery."
Although Judge Walls initially expressed some sympathy for the argument Thursday, after reviewing the prosecution's briefings and documents further, he refused to grant the senator's request.
"This court concludes that a rational jury could determine that the defendants entered into a quid pro quo agreement," Walls said. "The jury will decide whose version of what happened and what didn't happen is more likely than not."
McConnell Warns Insurgents Can't Beat Dems: He's Wrong
As he appeared at President Trump's side on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell derided conservative insurgent candidates for the Senate saying that they might win primaries but could never win general elections. Implicitly knocking the efforts of Breitbart's Steve Bannon to mount primaries against incumbent Senators, he said: "our primary approach will be to support our incumbents and in open seats to seek to help nominate people who can win in November," he said. "That's my approach. That's the way you keep a governing majority."
But McConnell has it wrong. Primaries generally result in eliminating worn out candidates who will fall like ripe fruit to Democrats in November and replacing them with vibrant, young contenders who can breathe vigor into the Party.
But McConnell has it wrong. Primaries generally result in eliminating worn out candidates who will fall like ripe fruit to Democrats in November and replacing them with vibrant, young contenders who can breathe vigor into the Party.
McConnell cited four examples of conservative insurgents who blew their chance to win in November after upending Republican Senate incumbents in the primaries: Christine O'Donnell (DE), Sharron Angle (NV), Todd Akin (MO), and Richard Mourdock (IN).
But these very examples demonstrate the flaw in his reasoning.
Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were both cruising to likely victories after their improbable primary victories until they self-destructed by saying something very stupid very close to election day. Aiken said that if a woman were the victim of a "legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down" and avoid a pregnancy. Mourdock said that if a woman got pregnant during a rape, it is "something God intended." Seniority in the Senate is no guarantee against foot-in-mouth disease.
With Angle and O'Donnell, McConnell has a getter. O'Donnell defeated perhaps the only Republican who could have won Joe Biden's Senate seat -- former governor and nine-term Congressman Mike Castle. Although a RINO, the GOP would probably have won the seat with Castle as the nominee.
In Nevada, Sharon Angle lost to Harry Reid. Running against the Reid organization is never easy. There is no basis for believing that the establishment-favored Republican who Angle beat in the primary -- Sue Lowden -- would have fared any better in November.
Against this specious argument that we should keep dysfunctional Senators in office so we can win in November, remember the theme of the elections of 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 -- to throw the incumbents out and to bring new blood into the Congress. With the obvious refusal of so many of McConnell's Senators to embrace the Trump agenda, voters -- primary and general election voters alike will jump at the chance to replace RINOs like Arizona's Jeff Flake and Mississippi's Roger Wicker with strong conservatives like Kelli Ward (AZ) and Chris McDaniel (MS).
Bannon is right that only by replacing RINOs with strong conservatives can we hope to keep the Trump voters on our side of the aisle.
But these very examples demonstrate the flaw in his reasoning.
Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were both cruising to likely victories after their improbable primary victories until they self-destructed by saying something very stupid very close to election day. Aiken said that if a woman were the victim of a "legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down" and avoid a pregnancy. Mourdock said that if a woman got pregnant during a rape, it is "something God intended." Seniority in the Senate is no guarantee against foot-in-mouth disease.
With Angle and O'Donnell, McConnell has a getter. O'Donnell defeated perhaps the only Republican who could have won Joe Biden's Senate seat -- former governor and nine-term Congressman Mike Castle. Although a RINO, the GOP would probably have won the seat with Castle as the nominee.
In Nevada, Sharon Angle lost to Harry Reid. Running against the Reid organization is never easy. There is no basis for believing that the establishment-favored Republican who Angle beat in the primary -- Sue Lowden -- would have fared any better in November.
Against this specious argument that we should keep dysfunctional Senators in office so we can win in November, remember the theme of the elections of 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 -- to throw the incumbents out and to bring new blood into the Congress. With the obvious refusal of so many of McConnell's Senators to embrace the Trump agenda, voters -- primary and general election voters alike will jump at the chance to replace RINOs like Arizona's Jeff Flake and Mississippi's Roger Wicker with strong conservatives like Kelli Ward (AZ) and Chris McDaniel (MS).
Bannon is right that only by replacing RINOs with strong conservatives can we hope to keep the Trump voters on our side of the aisle.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/10/httpift_18.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment