Views on the News
Views on the News*
October 20, 2018
It could be 1970 all over again: Richard Nixon was in the White House; the Vietnam War was still fully engaged; and the counter culture and the protest movement were at the height of their power. The left was overplaying its hand with violent protests. In the 1970 midterms, Republicans lost 12 seats in the House, but picked up 4 seats in the Senate. If that’s what happens in November, Republicans would retain the House and the Senate. Democrats need to pick up a net of two seats to gain control of the Senate, but instead, they look like they’ll be losing a few seats. Fivethirtyeight.com at this time is projecting an 81% chance that Republicans retain the Senate. So much for the blue wave. The American people could be reacting to the radical turn Democrats took to oppose seating Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. The House could be a different story. Fivethirtyeight.com projects an 84% chance Democrats win there. A split-decision where Republicans actually pick up seats in the Senate, even if they lose the House, would probably be viewed as a victory for President Trump and Republicans, securing a path to getting more Trump-nominated judges and executive appointments confirmed and in the meantime all but guaranteeing Democrats would lose any Trump impeachment battle in the Senate. It might not be the greatest upset in modern political history (President Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory will likely hold that title for many years to come) but it would still be a stinging defeat for Democrats. They were counting on a blue wave, just as they were counting on stopping Kavanaugh. They were supposed to win it all and claim a mandate. Instead, they may once again have to deal with being rejected by voters, who may be turning against the often violent radicalism that has taken hold of the left, because nobody is going to vote for a mob, no matter what letter they have after their names.
(“Could the blue wave be turning into 1970 again?” by Robert Romano dated October 17, 2018 published by Daily Torch at http://dailytorch.com/2018/10/could-the-blue-wave-be-turning-into-1970-all-over-again/ )
To most Americans, a large group of black-clad individuals blockading the streets and harassing motorists who disobey their commands would, quite naturally, be considered a mob. This also would be an apt and reasonable name given to groups of people stalking and screaming at others dining in a restaurant, destroying public monuments, or throwing Molotov cocktails in protest of speakers at a college campus. After all, by definition, a mob is “a large and disorderly crowd of people,” especially those “bent on riotous or destructive action.” The problem is, the Mainstream Media and congressional Democrats are not most Americans. In their Liberal La-La Land, like at CNN one dares not speak “the ‘M’-word” (“mob”) when commenting on events such as these. To these pundits, those roaming gangs and shouting crowds are not mobs, but merely concerned citizens understandably “motivated” by the dangerous actions of the Trump Administration. Since their 2016 trouncing, Democrats have strayed far from their Party’s traditional bread and butter issues like education and civil rights; pursuing instead a strategy exclusively focused on stoking emotional outbursts from their base. We hear less and less from Democrats about specific policy solutions for how they will fix anything, and increasingly more paranoid shouting that “people will die” with every move Trump and the GOP make. Therefore, in whatever twisted logic now passes for strategy in the Democrat Party, if every Trump decision is a death blow to something or someone, then aggressive resistance is an appropriate, if not a “morally imperative,” response. This sheer lunacy, echoed by elected Democrats back to unhinged activists who believe Trump is responsible for even the most petty of offenses, not surprisingly has morphed into the political upheaval we see today. Refusal by Democrats to accept this reality is akin to Dr. Frankenstein losing control over the monster he created; but in this, the very real world of 21st Century America, their antics put real people and real property at great and immediate risk. Scenes from the streets of Portland this month, where masked ANTIFA cowards took over the streets and battered motorists who dared defy them, were gut-wrenching to watch. More pathetic still was to see Portland’s Mayor Ted Wheeler roll-over and surrender to the mob overtaking his city. U.C. Berkeley let the mobs roam free without police intervention, as did the mayor of Charlottesville during the Unite the Right rally and counter-protests last year. These protestors, however, as vapid as their political arguments may be, are not the stupid ones; Wheeler and his hand-wringing colleagues are. By abdicating their sworn duty to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens from mob violence, these poor excuses for elected leaders not only endanger their constituents but undermine the very fabric of a civilized society. The chaos countenanced by the Wheelers in positions of authority is made worse still when police chiefs order their officers to stand down and simply watch the looting and violence. Complicit also are local prosecutors who refuse to charge those responsible. Whether voters will be as stupid as these elected and appointed officials, remains to be seen; but we will learn much in answer to that question when the votes are in on November 6th. God help us if a majority of voters in key districts, and in states with Senate seats and governorships, vote with these mob enablers.
(“The Frankenstein Unleashed by the Democratic Party Threatens Us All” by Bob Barr dated October 17, 2018 published by Town Hall at https://townhall.com/columnists/bobbarr/2018/10/17/the-frankenstein-unleashed-by-the-democratic-party-threatens-us-all-n2528974 )
Our founding fathers were intelligent rogue alpha males dressed in suits who whooped the snot out of tyrannical England with nothing more than a meager militia. Our founding fathers didn't apologize for bloodying the field when necessary, or for rising up in righteous anger when they were attacked. That anger and fierce brutality, needed to overcome the world's most powerful army at the time, is what is needed and absolutely warranted today. We'd be the United States of Great Britain if the founders hadn't risen up in anger, the very anger we saw of Brett Kavanaugh. According to the Bar Association, good temperament means that a judge exhibits "compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, sensitivity, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice." This is in reference to how a judge handles law and court cases. It does not specify that a justice is courteous when he and his family are personally attacked and he has to sit through a kangaroo court. It took anger and hostility to win that war against a tyrannical England. God himself can be and has been provoked to anger. Just read the Bible: even he has his limits and will rain down fiery judgment on the unjust. I don't want Justice Kavanaugh to apologize. Gloves come off when one is personally attacked and shredded without an ounce of evidence. The gloves came off with our founding fathers, and it didn't compromise their ability to draft the Declaration of Independence and subsequently the Constitution, nor their ability to win a bloody war. As a woman, I can come to only one conclusion: These women trying to subvert the males of this country are not the strong women they pretend to be. I am not talking about well intentioned women, many of whom are my friends, on the left. I'm talking those we see on their knees screaming and crying. They are trying to convince themselves with their outlandish lack of decorum and pseudo-strength. They are actually intimidated by a strong man, therefore they try to soften men. They are incapable of being truly strong women like Susan B. Anthony (who was a Republican for those who don't know). Strong women, truly strong women, like the grit in our men. The other women stand in the streets, attempting pansy violence in a fit of not getting their way, cajoling males to do the same, and expect those they oppose not to not rise up in response. I will never respect these antics or these fearful demonstrators. The men I, and the women I respect, surround ourselves with and the men we support for leadership will be the same. We want warriors, not subservient, apologetic wussies. Truly strong women will encourage a response like Kavanaugh's to being unjustly accused. Funny that liberal women try to condemn conservative women as subservient when we are not afraid to match ourselves with a strong male figure. We encourage their manliness, their strength, their vigor. A weak person tries to lessen others' power, not encourage it. Conservative women generally encourage the power of a man, because we are not afraid of it; that's what truly makes a strong woman.
(“A conservative woman writes in defense of strong men” by Jamie Hope dated October 15, 2018 published by American Thinker at https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/a_conservative_woman_writes_in_defense_of_strong_men.html )
President Trump’s recent declaration in USA Today that Medicare-for-All would “demolish promises to seniors” produced a deluge of denunciations from the Democrats, the media, and the plan’s primary congressional promoter, Bernie Sanders. Despite disingenuous promises from Sanders and his fellow travelers, it simply isn’t possible to implement their rebranded single-payer proposal without undermining the traditional Medicare program that most seniors rely upon for health care coverage. The people making grandiose promises on behalf of Medicare-for-All are the same characters who told us ObamaCare would cure the various maladies afflicting American medicine. Remember when they pledged that the risibly titled “Affordable Care Act” was going to reduce health care costs, cover the uninsured, and improve access to care? After eight years beneath the yoke of that misbegotten law, health care is more expensive than ever, there are still 30 million uninsured Americans, physician shortages are steadily worsening, and community hospitals are closing at the rate of one every three weeks. In other words, the last time the Democrats “fixed” health care, they exacerbated every problem that bedeviled the system. Yet the very people who accomplished that dubious feat are making the same promises on behalf of Medicare-for-All that they made on behalf of ObamaCare. Medicare-for-All will dramatically increase the aggregate cost of medical care, reduce access to doctors and hospitals, and necessitate stealth rationing, and it will be elderly Americans who feel these negative effects most acutely. Let’s begin with the cost of Medicare-for-All. The current Medicare program, without any grandiose plan to expand it to all Americans, will go bankrupt in less than ten years if it is not dramatically reformed. The estimated depletion date for the Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund is 2026, 3 years earlier than in last year’s report. The Trustees recommend that Congress and the executive branch work closely together with a sense of urgency to address the depletion of the HI trust fund. The same Democrats who claim they will expand Medicare steadfastly refuse to participate in any sensible plan to prevent it from going broke and vilify any policy maker who proposes such a plan. So, how can we expand a soon-to-be insolvent program that covers 50 million into a Medicare-for-All program that covers more than 300 million? Medicare-for-All will not “eliminate private insurance premiums, deductibles and co-payments.” It will merely force us to pay the money in taxes to the government, and that diversion of funds will add a huge amount of deadweight loss (the harm to economic efficiency associated with a tax) to the overall cost of health care. The Sanders plan comes with a hidden cost of $1,900 to $3,400 per U.S. resident or $7,700 to $13,600 for a family of 4 (per year). The Medicare-for-All Act would under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031), assuming enactment in 2018. That projection gives the Sanders plan the benefit of the doubt by accepting his wildly optimistic claim that health care providers will be able to remain solvent on payment rates 40% lower than those currently paid by private health insurance carriers. Doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes going forward would be insufficient to fully finance the plan. Such an increase in the scope of federal government operations would cause a correspondingly large increase in federal taxation or debt and would be unprecedented if undertaken as an enduring federal commitment. This is based on conservative estimates of the program’s cost. It is likely that the actual cost of Medicare-for- All would be substantially greater than has been estimated from its legislative text. As President Trump predicts, if payment rates to doctors and hospitals are actually held to the abstemious levels stipulated by the bill’s language, “Doctors and hospitals would be put out of business. Seniors would lose access to their favorite doctors. There would be long wait lines for appointments and procedures. Previously covered care would effectively be denied.” It will be an inevitable consequence of the laws of economics: supply and demand. The inevitable effects of Medicare-for-All are: dramatic increases in the aggregate cost of care, reductions in access to providers, and rationing. Seniors will feel these effects more acutely than other Americans because they use more health care and tend to be more expensive to treat. If a physician gets paid about the same amount for treating healthy young patients as he gets paid for seniors, he will start turning away the latter. This is called “stealth rationing” and is a common feature of all single-payer systems. Seniors will have to seek primary care in hospital ERs, the most expensive health care anywhere. President Trump is right that Medicare-for-All would be outrageously expensive, ageist, and immoral.
(“Trump is Right About Medicare-for-All” by David Catron dated October 15, 2018 published by The American Spectator at https://spectator.org/trump-is-right-about-medicare-for-all/ )
There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Updates have been made this week to the following sections:
· Judiciary at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/judiciary.php