The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”– Patrick Henry (1736-1799) US Founding Father
“If it were not for double standards, liberals [politicians and the MSM] would have no standards at all.” – WMAL’s conservative radio personality Chris Plante When extreme leftist klansman David Duke announced public support for a Donald Trump presidency, the MSM wrongly smeared the Republican candidate for the endorsement.
Honestly, in what sane world is any candidate responsible for any nutcase who chooses to back him?
If American culture consistently demonstrates anything, it’s that it takes all kinds of people freely making choices for their own reasons. That’s democracy. Yet, this jaded presentation of information was not journalism’s objective reporting of facts, but naked partisanship based upon false innuendo.
For starters, a racist, anti-suffrage klansman will never populate the party of Abraham Lincoln—Republicans then as now—that’s the Democrats’ department.
Before one jumps to the erroneous conclusion that liberals aren’t “that way” anymore, which of today’s political parties bases its polarizing narratives on irrelevancies like gender identity? Which party’s candidate says: ‘elect me because I’m a woman?’ Furthermore, which party successfully counted on another superficiality, that of race over the last eight disastrous years? Even the educated are fooled that the Democrats “atoned” for their disgraceful pro-slavery history with the passage of Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “holy grail”: the 1964 Civil Rights bill.
However, what is always true of progressives—then with Johnson, now with Clinton—is that things below the surface of their media-spun actions don’t line up with truth. At the time, LBJ admitted privately his real agenda: “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!”
Started in the 20th century and carried forward, what accompanied the good anti-discrimination statutes were invisible economic chains that have tricked generations of minorities into the barest government-supported subsistence in exchange for becoming loyal Democratic voting blocs. This dynamic is better known as the Democrat’s poverty plantation.
How else does one explain 90% of Afro-Americans supporting Republicans in Lincoln’s time, but only approximately 10% more recently? Minorities are perpetually infantilized; convinced by Democrats via their MSM creature that obtaining a free identity card is a bridge too far to cross.
That such a standard applied to anyone of voting age is somehow surreptitiously racist. Yet, as anyone sensible knows, an ID is a basic, modern necessity.
How else does one open a bank account, get a job or legally drive a car? As president, only Barack Obama doesn’t need one. While he habitually golfs with millionaires—and parties with billionaires—his wholly abandoned Chicago fellows eek out impoverished lives in inner city slums more dangerous than some Middle Eastern war zones.
Only the most extraordinary individuals—a select few like Dr. Ben Carson—rise from such humble beginnings to enjoy our now debt-ridden capitalistic system. If Hillary’s advocacy of Bernie Sanders’ style socialism is the path to mass prosperity, wouldn’t brainy Mr. Carson support her?
Speaking of unhinged support for a corrupt liar, we arrive at the funny farm of colorful characters that actually do endorse this Clintonian hydra of American scandal. While the media has ensured nutter David Duke is a household name, the powers-at-be have ignored John Bachtell. (“Jeopardy” champions, does that guy ring a bell for you?)
Mr. Bachtell—an outspoken Hillary advocate—is the little known chairman of the Communist Party of the United States. Think he’s just an exception to the rule? Let’s try the better known two-faced Seddique Mateen, a vocal Taliban supporter (read: pro-terrorism) and simultaneous lip service apologist for his jihadist, mass murdering son.
(The younger Mateen, Omar, slaughtered 49 innocents at the Orlando gay nightclub, Pulse.) Unlike Trump, the “objective” press did not take Hillary Clinton to task for not disavowing Seddique’s clapping presence at her Kissimmee rally (ironically featuring a speech about the tragedy). For his part, obviously, the elder Mateen felt quite comfortable in Mrs. Clinton’s company. He even told a local TV affiliate: “I was invited by the Democratic Party.” Naturally, the Clinton camp denied Seddique’s claim—much as they habitually deny every unsavory reality related to their candidate.
The press has not followed up on the matter. Nor are they ever likely to. Why? For one thing, 93% of journalists self-identify as Democrats. Moreover, as with all contemporary Clinton wrongdoing, one must heavily factor money into the equation (read: Clinton Cash).
Thus, the larger answer lies in the fact that as of 2011, 6 conglomerates control 90% of the legacy media. Given all of the kid glove, fawning coverage of Hillary Clinton, what are the odds that virtually all of these corporate behemoths are not contributors to her “charitable foundation” and/or her presidential campaign?
As Charity-gate has already demonstrated, “dead broke” Hillary peddles high level government influence for an ill-gotten 238 million dollar personal fortune. Undoubtedly, the liberal media has met Mrs. Clinton’s asking price.
Therefore, they have both a philosophical bias and a substantial investment in her presidency. Simply put, the fix is in.
In effect, the MSM functions as the propagandist arm of the anti-JFK Democratic Party. All of the above truths are easily obscured, buried under an avalanche of 24-hour MSM spin.
David L. Hunter is an Associate Editor at “Capitol Hill Outsider.” He’s on Twitter and blogs at davidlhunter.blogspot.com. He is published in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, “FrontPage Mag,” and extensively in “Patriot Post,” “Canada Free Press” and “American Thinker.”
“I will predict that within that year — now I may be wrong on this — but within the immediate future the Democrats are going to throw their hands in the air and say, ‘It’s not working. It’s unaffordable. And we have to go to a single-payer system.’ ”
That was Sen. Orrin Hatch in 2013, arguing that ObamaCare was designed to fail so that Democrats could use it as an excuse for the government to take over the entire insurance industry.
At the time, no respectable health care expert took Hatch — or any other conservative making such conspiratorial claims — seriously.
But today, Hatch is starting to look absolutely prescient, even if his timing was off.
Consider what is happening right now with ObamaCare. Enrollment is way below expectations. Insurers are putting in for double-digit rate hikes across the country, with some as high as 60%. UnitedHealth (UNH), Humana (HUM), and Blue Cross Blue Shield are pulling out of several ObamaCare markets, and most of the nonprofit co-ops created by ObamaCare have gone bust. As a result, the competition that was supposed to make ObamaCare exchanges the health care equivalent of Travelocity is evaporating.
And Democrats? They are using these problems to push for a still bigger role for government in providing health insurance.
The latest blow to ObamaCare came from Aetna (AET), which had been promising to expand its reach to 20 states, but instead is staying in just four. As a result, at least one county, this one in Arizona, faces the possibility that no insurer will be offering a health plan in the ObamaCare exchange.
Even before Aetna’s decision, 664 counties — more than a quarter of all counties in the country — had just one insurer in their ObamaCare exchange, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report. Given that Aetna is exiting more than 500 counties, that number will only increase.
Meanwhile, three entire states — Alaska, Alabama, and Wyoming — are down to one insurer, and there’s no contingency if one of those insurers were to pack up and leave.
That’s not to say all of ObamaCare is falling apart — only the heavily-regulated private sector piece is.
The law’s Medicaid expansion, in contrast, is doing fabulously well, with enrollment climbing by nearly 15.5 million between the summer of 2013 and January 2016. That’s a 27% increase. And that’s despite the fact that more than a dozen states refused to expand Medicaid eligibility.
So what’s Hillary Clinton’s answer to the failing private exchanges? Get more people on government insurance through what she calls the “public option.” This would be a government-run health care plan offered in ObamaCare exchanges across the country.
“The public option, Clinton says, “will strengthen competition and reduce costs.”
But wait a minute. The “public option” was pushed by liberal Democrats in 2009 when ObamaCare was being built, and it was rejected by centrists in the party because it looked too much like a steppingstone to single payer.
As a matter of fact, that was the idea behind the “public option” in the first place.
As Mark Schmitt explained in the liberal American Prospect, “The public option was part of a carefully thought out and deliberately funded effort (to convince the single-payer crowd) they could live with the public option as a kind of stealth single-payer.” The idea was that the public option would be able to undercut private plans, driving them all out of the exchanges.
But all those centrists Democrats who opposed the public option are gone from the Senate, and if Hillary Clinton gets elected with a more liberal Senate majority, the public option will likely be top of her agenda.
With the vast Medicaid expansion, and the public option (as well as Clinton’s proposal to expand Medicare), it’s not far-fetched to say that soon the only people covered by private insurance will be the diminishing number who get it through work. (ObamaCare was also designed to shrink employer-based health.)
So was this all in the grand plan when Democrats passed ObamaCare in 2010?
Sen. Harry Reid, all but admitted as much in late 2013, when in an appearance on PBS’ “Nevada Week in Review,” he said that “what we’ve done with ObamaCare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever.” When asked if that meant a single-payer system, Reid said, “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”
Ezra Klein, who at the time was a health care reporter with the Washington Post, explained that the left was pursuing a “sneaky strategy” to “put in place something that over time the natural incentives … move it to single payer.”
Could it be that Hatch, Reid and Klein were all right? It sure seems like it these days.
If so, the only way to stop the onward march to single payer would be to repeal ObamaCare and start over with free-market based reforms.
Good luck with that if Hillary Clinton wins the election in November.
Source: IBD Editorials
XXXI Olympiad competitors are joyfully showcasing their skills and sportsmanship, while delighted fans revel in their amazing efforts. But opening ceremonies featuring colorful history, dance, song and athletes were rudely interrupted by an unprecedented propaganda film.
As audiences around the world were getting pumped up in eager anticipation for the upcoming events, a slick but deceitful video soured the mood by inserting partisan climate change politics.
Fossil fuels are warming our planet, and the manmade heat is melting its ice caps, narrators intoned. Animated maps showed Greenland “disappearing very quickly” and Amsterdam, Dubai, Miami, Shanghai, Lagos and Rio being swallowed up by rising seas.
Well, yes, if average global temperatures really did soar 4 degrees Celsius (7.5 Fahrenheit), and if all of Greenland’s ice melts, oceans certainly could rise 20 feet and other terrible things certainly could happen.
But wild assumptions, computer models and animations are not reality. Few of us are really worried about being eaten by raptors and Tyrannosaurs cloned from DNA in fossilized amber, even though Jurassic Park sure made them look real. Ditto for Hollywood sharks, werewolves, cave monsters – and global warming.
In the Real World outside the animators’ windows, average planetary temperatures barely budged for 18 years. After climbing a headline-grabbing 0.55 degrees C (1 deg F) in 2015, a strong El Niño year, they plummeted a media-ignored 0.5 degrees C the first seven months of 2016, as La Niña approached. That’s a far cry from the 4/7.5 temperature spike that animated the animators’ fear-mongering. The sun has entered a low-sun-spot phase, possibly heralding a new colder period for Planet Earth.
As to temperatures increasing “since the industrial era began,” that primarily reflects Earth’s emergence from the 500-year Little Ice Age. Of course, climate alarmists happily claim this natural warming is due to mankind’s growing fossil fuel use during the same period of time, though scientists still cannot distinguish human and natural factors. With temperatures rising 1850-1940, cooling 1940-1975, warming 1975-1998, and mostly flat-lining since then, it’s hard to blame oil, gas and coal for any warming.
So the likelihood of Greenland’s ice all melting is about zero. In fact, its ice mass has been growing since the time period the Olympics propaganda squad selected to show the ice sheets “disappearing.”
News stories about the Rio video also featured claims that climate change has “already had real effects in Brazil,” where 60% of the Amazon rainforest is located. Some 240,000 acres were clear-cut just in June 2016, “as a result of deforestation” – related to global warming, it was slyly suggested.
If they’re talking about replacing rainforests with biofuel plantations, to replace fossil fuels that could be produced from a fraction of that acreage, then yes, there’s a climate (policy) connection. But there would be little need to chop down all those trees if climate chaos campaigners weren’t obsessively opposed to the fossil fuels that power 80% of the world’s economy and provide other vital human needs.
The indispensable benefits of hydrocarbons and petrochemicals for Olympic Games alone are impressive.
They are the raw materials for uniforms of every description; swim suits, goggles and caps; kayaks and kayaker helmets and paddles; bicycle helmets, shoes and carbon-fiber frames; basketballs, vaulting poles, tennis balls and racquets, soccer balls and shin guards; bows and arrows; volleyball and field hockey nets; basketballs; seats and clothing for fans; prosthetics and wheelchairs for Paralympians; and much more.
No one could watch the games without plastics for computers, cameras, monitors, cell phones, dish antennas, banners and other equipment that promote, record and transmit the events. Neither athletes nor fans could get to the games without airlines, vehicles and fossil fuels.
In short, virtually nothing we make, grow, eat, use or do is possible without fuels and materials that come out of holes in the ground somewhere on our planet. But radical greens want it all put off limits. They would rather see billions of acres of croplands, rainforests and wildlife habitats cleared and plowed – and trillions of gallons of water and fertilizer expended – to grow biofuel crops to replace fossil fuels. “Keep it in the ground,” they demand.
African, Asian and European countries cannot afford to stop using oil, natural gas or coal. Nor can the United States or any other modern or developing country.
Naturally, the video and news reports mentioned none of this. So why did the Rio organizers agree to present this manmade climate cataclysm video?
One possible reason is a desire to distract people from its real problems. Mosquitoes are spreading Zika. Shoddy athletic housing has bare wires and sinks falling off walls. The open-water swimming venue is a bacteria-infested open sewer. Swallowing just a few teaspoons of Rio’s tap water will make visiting athletes and fans horribly sick. Eleven construction workers died while preparing Rio for the games.
Brazil’s economy is on the rocks and #174 out of 189 nations for starting a new business. Its current and previous presidents are under investigation for corruption.
But once the games got underway, they were fantastic, fun, exciting and dramatic; their own distraction.
So the video could be simple “greenwashing” – making the 2016 games the “greenest ever.” Or it might be to reinforce Brazil’s claim to billions of dollars that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have promised for mitigation, adaptation and compensation for the climate chaos we supposedly caused.
Just as strange, even ExxonMobil played the politically correct climate game. Its Olympics TV ad says the company is doing all it can to reduce “carbon pollution.” Surely Exxon knows it’s not carbon (soot); it’s carbon dioxide. And it’s not pollution; the plant-fertilizing CO2 is enriching the atmosphere and making forests, grasslands and food crops grow faster and better. So why use Obama/EPA terminology?
Maybe the company just wants to buy some feel-good PR and “peace in our time.” Maybe it and its corporate and political colleagues are forgetting 1960s radical activist Jerry Rubin’s comment: “The more demands you satisfy, the more we’ve got.” And Winston Churchill’s blunt truth: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
All of it reminds me of the way several Egyptian journalists responded to President Obama’s 2015 commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy. “Climate change is a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security,” he asserted. “It will impact how our military defends our country.” Anyone who fails to recognize this is guilty of “dereliction of duty.”
The journalists reacted in disbelief. “Is he insane? Is he on drugs?” asked one. “What did you expect from a president who never served in the military and never worked a day in his life?” said the second. “I’m sure he’s not deliberately trying to destroy his country,” the first suggested. “Of course he is,” the third said.
Now millions of Americans appear perfectly willing to sacrifice their livelihoods, living standards, liberties and country on the altar of manmade climate Armageddon. Are they insane? Are they on drugs?
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death
SideBear: Make it easy on Obama, let’s blame George Bush