D’Souza Talks About Legalized Crime By The Democrats

Quote of the Day 05/24/16

“Saying it’s okay for the government to spy on you because you’re innocent and you have “nothing to hide”… Is like saying it’s okay for the government to censor free speech because you have “nothing to say.” ” — Edward Snowden(1983-) IT security specialist, NSA whistleblower

Drafting Women: Do We Believe in Equality or Don’t We? By Selwyn Duke

With Congress poised to possibly require women to register for the draft, reaction from the conservative pundit class has been swift and severe. WND’s Jane Chastain calls it “worse than cowardly,” while radio host Mark Levin ferociously railed against the proposal on his Friday show. But I have just one question: do we believe in equality or don’t we?

For the record, I’m a traditionalist best described as Mayberry meets the Middle Ages. I believe in a papa bear, mama bear and baby bears and no mixing of roles considered unbearable in a Norman Rockwell illustration. And drafting women wouldn’t be an issue in my world because they wouldn’t be in the military in the first place. But this isn’t my world. It’s a bizarro world where we believe in Equality™. At least, that’s our story and we’re stickin’ to it.

I’ve also pointed out that our equality dogma is a con. Equality is not a thing of this world; in fact, in the realm of nature and man, inequality is the norm. And most of human history reflected this reality, with equality dogma born of the so-called Enlightenment and further minted as a faux virtue by socialists.

(Karl Marx must dance in his grave every time we mindlessly bellow “Equality!”). I’ve even stated that the term equality should never be used in reference to people, but, as in the Bible, be reserved for weights and measures. Here’s the problem:

I’ve rarely, if ever, heard a conservative reject equality dogma in principle. Instead, reinforcing yesterday’s liberals’ social victories, they sometimes take pains to point out that they believe in Equality™ — just like the Left.

Yet like the Left, they don’t really believe in equality, but in some non-traditional form of inequality branded “equality.” Calls for equality are issued selectively — in other words, unequally — and only when they serve to destroy tradition. Even though the intersex pay gap is caused by the sexes’ different lifestyle choices and not unjust discrimination, politicians vow to stamp it out. There also have been complaints that women in Hollywood earn far less than the men, but you know what we hear about how female fashion models
greatly out-earn their male counterparts? Crickets.

As for the military, women are supposed to have all the opportunities the men do, but not the burden of being drafted if the call is issued. And other examples abound.

This is where a good conservative might say, “The difference is that liberals believe in equality of outcome; we only believe in equality under the law.” But the law states that men must register for selective service. Well….?

So like children, we’re playing a game — the Equality Game. And like children, we only want to play it when it pleases us. As soon as it doesn’t feel right, we take our ball and go home.

So within the context of our faux-equality society, I have no problem with drafting women into the military. For to use a twist on an Abraham Lincoln line, the best way to eliminate a bad social code is to enforce it strictly. In fact, noting that female athletes have often lobbied for the prize money/salaries their male counterparts command (women soccer players most recently),

I advocate eliminating separate tours, leagues and teams for women/girls. With the mile record for 15-year-old boys surpassing the women’s world record, it would be an excellent object lesson in the realities of equality.

As it stands right now, though, it’s no surprise feminists are all in for “equality” — they’re some of the people more equal than others.

Speaking of which, here’s a question for those advocating equality in principle but against drafting women. One of the arguments for giving 18-year-olds the vote was that if you’re man enough to make the ultimate sacrifice — perhaps having to fight and die for your country — you’re man enough to vote for those who may send you to war.

The idea is that with responsibility comes authority. We don’t give children adult authority, but they also don’t have adult-level responsibility (this is one reason they aren’t punished as harshly for crimes). Yet isn’t it also true that with authority comes responsibility? If women are “man enough” to vote for those who may send Americans off to war, should they not be considered man enough to have to make that ultimate sacrifice? Some might even say our current status quo ensures that women, especially single women without military-age male family members, will have little or no skin in the game.

None of this means that I, Mr. Mayberry Meets the Middle Ages, subscribe to all these arguments, mind you. I’m more role-oriented. But the inconsistencies in our thinking should be addressed. And what should be said unabashedly is that equality dogma must die. What has it wrought?

The Left is now even using it to justify allowing men to use women’s/girls’ locker rooms (the Charlotte, NC, ordinance). Note, too, that this is based on nothing but feelings: so-called “transgender” individuals (a designation invented by psychiatrists) feel they’re actually members of the opposite sex, and they feel uncomfortable using the facilities for their own.

But what of the great majority of people who feel uncomfortable have in them in their sex-specific facilities? Why should the feelings of less than 1 percent of the population take precedence over the feelings of more than 50 percent of the population?

Some feelings are more unequal than others, too, apparently.

You may now say that we have to try harder to apply the principles of equality. You’re not paying attention. Since equality is not a thing of this world, it’s unachievable; moreover, unless you like drafting women and letting 10-year-olds vote, buy alcohol and enter into contracts, you should know it’s undesirable. It’s always just a matter of what version of inequality will be accepted or implemented. Will it be fact-based or fraud-based?

We can accept that having persistent feelings that you’re a member of the opposite sex (“gender dysphoria”) — just like having strong feelings that a body part should be

amputated (Body Integrity Identity Disorder) — is inferior to a normal state of being. Or we can entertain fantasies. But it’s yet another fantasy to expect fantastical thinkers to be able to conceptualize what true equality would involve — or to give us the just version of inequality.

As for our latest bad policy proposal, we should stop fighting to draft women — just as soon as we stop fighting for that poison pill of leftist inequality wearing the pretty Equality label.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

No, The Public Doesn’t Suddenly Support Socialized Medicine

A new Gallup survey seems to suggest that majority of Americans now back government-run health care.

That, at least, is what Gallup’s headline about its poll says: “Majority in U.S. Support Idea of Fed-Funded Healthcare System.”

The mainstream press eagerly ran with the story. The Washington Post, for example, headlined its piece: “Poll: Most Americans want to replace ObamaCare with single-payer — including many Republicans.”

The ABC News headline blared “Poll Says Majority of Americans Prefer ‘Medicare For All’ Health Care,” and the story led by saying that “A growing number of Americans now support the idea of federally funded health care.”

Look more carefully at the poll itself, however, and you see that it doesn’t show that at all.

Gallup asked three questions relating Gallup asked three questions relating to ObamaCare that were meant to gauge the public’s support for repealing the law.

What it found was that 51% now say ObamaCare should be repealed, whether or not it’s replaced with anything, while just 48% favor keeping it in place.

The poll also asked about “replacing the ACA with a federally funded health care program providing insurance for all Americans.”

That question elicited 58% support.

What this response means is anyone’s guess. Even Gallup admits it can’t say for sure, particularly since the Republican response to this question is highly questionable.

According to the survey results, 41% of Republicans favor replacing ObamaCare with a single-payer system. Gallup’s Frank Newport says the finding could simply reflect that Republicans “view any proposal to replace the ACA as better than keeping in place.”

Without that unreasonably high GOP number, the support for “Medicare for all” basically vanishes. (Interestingly, Gallup didn’t bother to include a question in the poll asking about replacing ObamaCare with free-market reforms.)

In any case, other far-more-straightforward polls show widespread public opposition to government-run health care.

Gallup itself has for several years asked whether the public supports a “government-run health care system” or one “based mostly on private health insurance.”

The majority has consistently backed the current private system: 55% did so in 2015, which is almost exactly where it stood in 2011.

Meanwhile, an AP poll taken earlier this year found that only 39% say they back “replacing the current private health insurance system with a single-payer, Medicare-like plan.”

Even that meager support dropped when the details of such a plan were made clear. Just 28% said they supported the idea if it meant “your own taxes would increase” or if it meant giving up employer coverage. Just 18% supported single-payer if it meant “longer wait times for nonemergency medical services.”

Well, guess what, that’s exactly what Sanders’ “Medicare for all” — or any other single-payer plan for that matter — would produce. By definition, they would force everyone off their private insurance plans and onto the government-run program. Everyone would see their taxes climb.

Among other things, Sanders raises income taxes on all taxpayers. The liberal Urban Institute found that the tax hike needed to pay for Sanders’ plan would be $32 trillion over the next decade, or more than twice what Sanders claims.

The public is even less likely to back single-payer when they learn that Sanders’ own home state of Vermont canceled plans to adopt a single-payer system, once the governor realized that the costs involved would wreck the state’s economy.

Meanwhile, anyone who has looked at Canada or Britain — or at the Veterans Health Administration here at home — knows that government-run health care invariably produces chronic delays in treatments, even for emergency procedures.

So, no, the public doesn’t support “Medicare for all” or anything like it.

What the new Gallup poll does show is something the mainstream press — and even Gallup itself — missed. Which is that, six years after it became law, most Americans want ObamaCare repealed, including a quarter of Democrats.

In a presidential election year during which one candidate has promised to repeal ObamaCare on Day One, this finding is, well, yuuuge.

Source: IBD Editorials

Ryan’s Hot Air Smoke Screen By David L. Hunter

“Others merely talk about limiting government, cutting taxes and reforming entitlements, but Mr. Ryan spends most of his waking hours trying to accomplish all three; to him it’s the goal and not the process that’s all-important.” —The Washington Times’ David Keene

If that’s the goal, let’s review the facts. Paul Ryan has been U.S. Representative for Wisconsin’s 1st congressional district since 1999. Therefore, his 17-year tenure encompasses the tail end of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and all of George W. Bush’s and Barack Obama’s. Using the basic measurements of government size by spending and personnel — both of which indicate expansion — when has this “leader” ever honored his limited government pledge? Now as House Speaker — the highest-ranking Republican — has this policy-driven wonk finally curtailed government? How about a desperately needed tax cut for the economically squeezed middle class? More to the point, as Congress controls the purse strings, has Mr. Ryan held the line against further deficit spending?

What did Mr. Ryan do in the big chair? Using lofty rhetoric, his “clean slate” speech made nice with Democrats — and he rubber stamped two trillion dollars more to the nation’s Chinese credit card.

Recall the debt has almost doubled from GWB’s accumulated $10.6 trillion to Mr. Obama’s added $9 trillion — and counting. In this, Mr. Ryan’s former facial hair was apropos as he’s definitely hiding something. What’s that? He’s the Democrats’ beard. Where it matters — one’s actions — he’s not fundamentally different from big government progressives.

History demonstrates a cowed, do-nothing Republican establishment whose value of conservative principles is hot air. That’s not my assessment, that’s Dave Brat’s (R-VA). He writes: “Conservatives are supposed to stand for fiscal discipline, balanced budgets and reducing government waste. Yet House leadership is currently whipping votes for a bad budget deal that was negotiated behind closed doors by party leaders and that blows through the budget caps.” He works there, so he should know. Better than me and certainly better than Mr. Keene.

David L. Hunter is on Twitter and blogs at davidlhunter.blogspot.com. He is published in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Patriot Post, FrontPage Mag, and extensively in Canada Free Press and American Thinker.