'We hate capitalism except at the end of the month. Then all bets are off.'
And it really is all about the class division were the ruling class tells the lesser classes what they have to do to be accepted as legitimate soldiers for the cause.
The ultimate rulers comfortably established in their fortified enclaves of supposed superior education, and therefore better positioned to rule, but at same time being paid extremely well for their hatful lessons of protest against those that write the checks.
Hypocrites, bigots, domestic terrorists. Progressive socialist liberals disguised as progressive socialist liberal professors, national media and democrat politicians.
'We hate capitalism but we love the money and the power that it brings to us to destroy all opposition to commons sense and logic.'
A question of 'need' and 'wants' among lower classes or working people rates high in the chattering classes that believe they have the answer to all things necessary for survival, and that is government control of outcomes. But government cannot control human nature which in many cases their 'want's that exceed their 'need'. Providing a $15 an hour wage for the most basic jobs is not in the best interest of the work as it provides no incentive to become better. Hard work, education and dedication has to play an important roll in defining one's success. And further how long will it be before the high wage will not be enough? New wants will dominate. The first big wage increase was easy enough without earning it, why not another? And even more important for left politicians is of course, the progressive socialist liberals need to make sure that the lower income classes remain that way so the liberal democrats can demonstrate how they are fighting the corrupt Republicans that demand people earn their way in life. Again, the old motto from a failed ideology of the last century, ''To each according to ones need and From each according to one's ability'' works well for socialist democrats. They will live and die by that ideology. God created everyone equal and in his own image, but our Constitution just says that everyone has an equal chance at becoming prosperous. It takes a will and hard work to be successful. And everyone's needs are different just as everyone's wants are different, everyone's definition of success is different as well. But the leveling of the playing field is everyone has the same chance to acquire a personal level of success given ones drive and ambitions. As the author points out there are circumstances that effect out comes as well, and that is where responsible and temporary government assistance is required. Why Democrats Are Obsessed With Wealth Inequality Dennis Prager / @DennisPrager /
If you want to understand today’s Democratic Party, a word search of a Democratic debate in 2015 provides a pretty clear picture. Here is how many times keywords were spoken:
Wall Street: 23
Tax: 20
Inequality: 9
Wealthy: 7
Now, compare the number of times other national concerns were mentioned:
ISIS: 4
Terror/ists/ism: 2
Defense: 2
Military (excluding Jim Webb): 1
Freedom: 1
Debt (national): 0
Liberty: 0
Strength: 0
Armed forces: 0
Islamist/Islamic: 0
Material inequality is the predominant concern of the Democratic Party. Indeed, material inequality has been the predominant concern of the left since Karl Marx.
This raises two questions: How important is material inequality? And if it is not that important, why does it preoccupy the left-wing mind? The answer to the first question is: It depends. It depends, first of all, on the economic status of the poorer members of the society.
If the bottom percentile society has its basic material needs met, then the existence of a big gap between its members and the wealthiest members of the society is not a moral problem. But if the members of the bottom rung of society are in such an impoverished state that their basic material needs are not met, and yet there is a supremely wealthy class in the same society, then the suffering of its poorest class renders that society’s inequality a moral problem.
And what most matters in both cases is whether the wealthiest class has attained its wealth honestly or corruptly. If the wealthy have attained their wealth morally and legally, then the income gap is not a moral problem.
In a free society, wealth is not a pie—meaning that when a slice of pie is removed, there is less of the pie remaining. And the poorer members of society have the ability to improve their economic lot.
Through hard work, self-discipline, marriage, and education—and with some degree of good luck—the poor can join the middle class and even the wealthy class.
The latter is generally the case in America. Unlike in most societies, for most Americans being poor is not a fate. The only time being poor becomes permanent is when noneconomic factors render it so.
These factors include not having a father in one’s life, growing up with no family or social emphasis on education, women having children without a man, and men having children without committing to the mother of those children.
The left, with its materialist view of life, refuses to concede these nonmaterial producers of poverty and that changing behavior is therefore the only way to raise the majority of the poor out of their poverty. Of course, when bad luck—such as chronic illness or being the victim of a violent crime—is the reason for one’s impoverished condition, societal help is a moral imperative.
Instead, the left believes that the focus of attention must be on reducing the wealth of the wealthy—again, as if the wealth is a pie. Thus, the left demands a redistribution of wealth in society—taking money (that was honestly earned) from those who are wealthier and giving that money to the poor.
But all that does most of the time is prolong the poverty of the poor, as they are not only not forced to engage in productive behavior, they are actually paid to continue whatever unproductive behaviors they are engaged in. All this should be obvious to anyone with common sense. But incorrect ideology always distorts common sense.
So, why is the left preoccupied with inequality in a society in which most poor people have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty? Because of its class-based materialist ideology.
Because seeing some people own luxury vehicles, multiple homes, and even private jets while others live in small apartments feels wrong to the left—and leftism is based on feelings.
Because it prefers that the state, not the individual citizen, has as much wealth as possible.
And because when you don’t fight real evils (communism during the Cold War, and now Islamism, Russian expansion, Syria’s use of chemical weapons), you fight non-evils. And material inequality is non-evil.
I believe this author is on the mark where men should and must speak out if they know of physical and or sexual abuse is happening in the work place. But what is missing here is that the author makes no mention that if men speak out against a collogue for abuse or harassment, they will suffer retaliation as well. What is the roll, responsibility of women in the work place to speak up to stop work place abuse? So why is it that women haven't spoken out immediately when they have been harassed or abused? What are other women in the work place that see harassment and are not involved to do? Why is it only the job of men to take responsibility to rectify work place abuse? The question then that remains, what are the rules for women and what are the rules for men when they see abusive individuals? Believe or not it a two edged sword. Men, It’s Your Obligation to Speak Up About Sexual Harassment Mary Vought /@MaryVought/
A key piece is missing from the national discussion about sexual harassment. The media’s spotlight on this terrible epidemic is welcome news for females everywhere, as the culture of silence has finally been dealt a severe blow. But, what about the men? I’m not referring to the lowlifes that victimize women—men that view us as objects to be groped, manhandled, or as the punch line in a dirty joke. I’m talking about the men who have witnessed this harassment or know it’s happened, but cowardly choose to stay silent.
After Harvey Weinstein’s alleged sexual assaults made prime-time news (and new allegations are still emerging), Ben Affleck and Matt Damon made statements condemning his actions. But according to news reports, both actors had prior knowledge of the harassment that happened to their colleague, and Affleck’s then-girlfriend, Gwyneth Paltrow. Where was their moral conviction when they first heard the allegations? Where was Damon’s cry for justice decades earlier when this alleged abuse first took place? Hollywood director Quentin Tarantino, as well many others, also admitted to having foreknowledge of Weinstein’s lewd behavior toward many women. Tarantino said, “I knew enough to do more than I did.”
Although his lack of action at the time of the alleged abuse is saddening, this honest confession should be a lesson for men everywhere: If you know of abuse, you have an obligation to speak out.
Turning a blind eye and ignoring the wrongdoing means you’re also ignoring the victim and allowing this cycle of abuse to continue. Your silence is speaking volumes. It sends a message to women that you are complicit, and even condoning the exploitation.
How many women could have been spared Weinstein’s misconduct had men with this knowledge simply done the right thing and called him out early on? Had witnesses put aside any personal ramifications and acted, this Hollywood culture of abuse could have been weakened before it had time to claim countless other victims and ruin many lives. Not to mention that creeps like this would hopefully have been exposed sooner rather than later, preventing them from creating even more victims.
But it’s not just Los Angeles that’s a breeding ground for this evil. The #MeToo movement has taught us many things, including that sexual harassment victims are in our very own backyard.
Many of our mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, friends, and grandmothers have been carrying the burden of this abuse for some time now, too ashamed to admit they too have been victimized.
Take the workplace, for example. According to a report on sexual harassment in the office, it has been estimated that a whopping 75 percent of harassment incidents go unreported due to fear of retaliation. This is unacceptable.
Men, many of you have been silent for far too long. It’s time to speak up and do what’s right.
This starts with no tolerance of “locker room” talk. It means not laughing at the sexual joke that pokes fun at a female colleague, and it means speaking out and opposing wrongdoing and inappropriate sexual behavior when it has been witnessed.
Even if you’re a stranger to the victim and abuser, by witnessing these acts you have an ethical responsibility to call the abuse out and, if applicable, notify proper authorities. It’s easy to join the chorus condemning the public’s latest accused harasser after the fact, but if you don’t have the courage to speak out when it happens, you’re no better than the rest.
Insanity on the progressive socialist liberal left is still the rule of the day and like most everything else is associated with mentally deranged individuals, it can only get worse. Hate feeds on it elf and must always be ramped up, people can never become less hateful. Gen John Kelly has an opinion on the Civil War and who fought it and why. The progressive socialist liberals don't accept his opinion as it doesn't fit the progressive narrative and ideology. What we as a nation are witnessing on our colleges campuses and in our streets for just about everything that has been civil for 240 years and seen as acceptable behavior, but has now become a flash points for the forces of evil to commit mental and physical violence to gain attention. Their attack on General Kelly is no different. Ignorance and a willingness for destructive violence against of our civil society by people and organizations that believe they can gain a foot hold on the thinking of majority of the people is only cementing the opinion of these people that the evil doers are the problem and must be stopped The people understand the problem. They elected Donald Trump to do the job.
What the Reaction to John Kelly’s Civil War Remarks Says About Our Culture Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman /
Jesus famously said that no prophet is accepted in his hometown. It turns out the Father of Our Country isn’t accepted in his home church. Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia, stepped into the larger debate over statues and history this week when it decided to remove plaques of President George Washington and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee because they might make attendees feel “unsafe or unwelcome.” We Went to the Church That Will Remove the Washington and Lee Plaques. Here’s What We Saw.
But a cursory glance at history shows the foolishness of treating Washington this way.
During the Civil War, when Americans were killing each other by the hundreds of thousands, Washington’s estate at Mount Vernon was used as neutral ground by both sides to treat their wounded. Washington’s appeal was universal even as the country was falling apart.
It may be a sign of the times that the most singularly unifying individual in our nation’s history is now considered an unwelcoming figure at the historic church he attended for much of his life.
But in the rapidly moving crusade against the sins of America’s past, Confederates are seamlessly lumped in with Founders.
In the Slip N’ Slide of slippery slopes, the movement that began by going after Lee and Jefferson Davis has now devolved to the point of expunging Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and now Washington. All of these men have simply become stand-ins for the sins of modern America.
Reasonable people can debate the comparative merit of figures like Washington and Lee, but the rampant attacks on statues, plaques, and history itself should tell us that we are hardly engaged in a rational national discussion. If you make a single, politically incorrect misstep in this debate, you will get swept up in the crusade along with the statues.
President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, John Kelly, learned this the hard way. Kelly weighed in on the Christ Church decision in an interview with Laura Ingraham and defended Lee, in particular, from attacks. Kelly said he thought Lee was “honorable” and that a “lack of compromise” ultimately led to the Civil War.
At one time, these statements may have been met with polite rebuttals or sparked a debate on the legacy of a war that took the lives of over half a million Americans. Not in 2017. Kelly was immediately labeled ignorant, a defender of the Confederacy, and guilty of perpetuating racism.
CNN contributor April Ryan on Tuesday and Wednesday actually asked White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders if the administration thought “slavery was wrong.” Watch the video : https://twitter.com/DavidRutz/status/925444360296194049
It must be noted that Kelly’s opinion of Lee isn’t far removed from that of President Dwight Eisenhower, who kept a portrait of Lee (and Gen. Ulysses S. Grant) in his office. Ike was no “Lost Cause” supporter, and in fact played a vital role in desegregating Southern schools. Yet, he wrote that Americans could continue to learn something from the Confederate general because “a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul.”
It took a monumental effort to rebuild this country after the cataclysmic Civil War tore it into pieces and nearly destroyed it. It is a testament to the enduring greatness of the United States that we picked up the pieces and made it even greater than before in the century that followed.
Lee, like Lincoln, became a uniting figure for Americans—of many political persuasions—who represented the restoration of the union and rebirth of freedom under a single banner, no longer plagued by the cancer of slavery.
Kelly’s other statement about the lack of compromise leading to war, though disputable, would have been met with little opposition even just a few decades ago. Shelby Foote, the famed historian who headlined the Ken Burns Civil War documentary in the 1990s, used those words, almost verbatim, in the series’ opening episode. Burns is certainly no right-winger.
The series of compromises made over the decades before the war may have both delayed the violence, but also made it inevitable. Ultimately, the slave states’ inability to compromise and accept the election of Lincoln sparked the war.
Again, there is much to debate about the Civil War, which, as Kelly’s detractors are so keen to scream out over and over again, was undoubtedly caused by the slavery issue. However, the overreaction to the remarks shows why this country can’t have a healthy debate about statues and history. The ferocity and hysteria of ideological combat against the current administration is now being directed at complex eras, far removed from our own modern debates.
We have reached a sad, final moment in which the most unifying symbols of who we are as a people are considered “unwelcoming.” Men like Washington, Lincoln, Lee, Christopher Columbus, and so many others have simply been recast as villains for the contemporary crusaders, whose attacks are becoming indiscriminate and whose aims could not be more petulant.
''When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise'' seems to be the rule of the day in the NFL. The question that remains for me and many others, is how does the NFL repair the bubble that we all once lived in while watch in the spring how teams were being formed and then during the season how we prayed for their particular success, has now been cruelly burst. Clearly, I and many others have suddenly, and I do mean suddenly, become terribly confused as we watch this year as so many teams are taking a knee or standing locking arms during the anthem, forcing us that believe that removing your hat, standing with your hand over your heart for the national anthem is an American obligation as a citizen of this great country, to look at these football teams with a different and jaundiced eye that once saw these people as bigger then life itself, worshiped and adored, but now we see only just other ordinary people, though rich and privileged people, that have a political axe to grind in side the stadium, similar to the political and violent chaos outside the stadium. This is unacceptable. Apparently their is no escaping the gut retching chaos of partisan politics and mental ineptitude out side of the stadium, but now has come inside the stadium, other then not attending the NFL football games or turning the channel. There just has to be a better to be a better way to enjoy the day and maybe the author is right. Maybe baseball is the way to gain relief and enjoyment to escape tragic daily news if only for a few hours on the week end by watch or attending a baseball game. The NFL’s Folly Means Baseball Can Once Again Become America’s Passion Jarrett Stepman /@JarrettStepman/
Just a few years ago, the idea that the National Football League would be knocked off its pedestal as America’s top sport would have been laughable. The initial national anthem kneeling incident of unemployed NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick has exploded into a league-wide phenomenon.
The result has been increasing discontent over what has been frequently called America’s “passion.” Though football still technically rests at the top of the heap as far as overall ratings, a significant shift is taking place. Baseball, America’s original pastime, is retaking its spot in our hearts.
Remarkably, Game 5 of the World Series, a titanic struggle between the Houston Astros and Los Angeles Dodgers, surpassed Sunday Night Football in the ratings with 19 million viewers. This is now the second year in a row that it has happened. And a recently released survey showed that Major League Baseball has surpassed the NFL in popularity. Meanwhile, Morning Consult recently found that the NFL’s brand popularity had fallen to its lowest point since it began tracking it in May.
The signs that a torch is passing are unmistakable.
A combination of boring games, worrying science over brain injuries, and noxious politics is dragging down the NFL, and baseball is reaping the benefits.
The NFL was, until recently, a uniting cultural institution for this country. It was one of the few things that Americans of almost any background and political affiliation could bond over and enjoy.
But the league has made a number of self-inflicted missteps that have failed to ease the worries of those who think the sport is too dangerous and have alienated the game’s most fervent supporters.
Whether intentionally or not, baseball has stepped up at the right time.
Two years of fantastic World Series games certainly help, regardless of the ball juicing controversy. Even without the presence of the New York Yankees, there has been a huge amount of interest in the games. Whether it’s seeing which team can break a World Series curse, such as with last year’s Indians-Cubs matchup, or a competitive series between highly talented teams as we have this year, the game is simply fun for dedicated and casual fans. But importantly, the game has mostly avoided the political battles that have embroiled the NFL and the NBA.
One MLB player kneeled for the national anthem, Bruce Maxwell of the Oakland Athletics. But he’s unlikely to be carrying out these protests in a major league uniform any time soon. Since the protest, Maxwell has gone on to accuse a waiter in Alabama for not serving him over politics, an allegation the restaurant vehemently denies, and has gotten himself arrested for allegedly brandishing a firearm at a food delivery person.
It would be wise for the league to put a lid on the controversy now and, as Jon Del Arroz wrote in The Federalist, “keep America’s pastime a fun, family-friendly celebration of American culture for decades to come.”
Sports rise and fall in America. At one time boxing and horse racing were ubiquitous, but they receded as the NFL and other sports took their place.
Now, poor decisions at a time when the sport is literally under the microscope have opened the door for something else to take its place. Americans badly need something they can still rally around.
Back to back phenomenal World Series matchups have opened the door for a sport as American as apple pie to reassert itself and become something that unites the country once again.
Baseball has an amazing opportunity to step into the void, if it doesn’t blow it.
Yikes! I find it amazing, astounding at the lengths to which the progressive socialist liberals democrats will go to prove to themselves their candidate for the presidency, Hillary Clinton wasn't a total loser from the beginning and that the party, (the collective) didn't willingly make a colossal mistake in their choice that will ultimately bring ruin to the collective itself. What remains is a contemptuous delusion that can be seen as a pathological psychosis based on a fear of the loss of power so great that all remnants of common sense or logic have been totally lost, discarded, and replaced with self induced lies as to how their personal failure, ignorance and malfeasance during the campaign to understand just who supported Donald Trump and who actually supported Hillary Clinton. And then as a result of the campaign leaders blindly accepting falsified polls that said Hillary had 93% chance to crush Donald Trump, failed to deliver the presidency for the socialist liberals. One has to understand the progressive socialist liberal democrats have demonstrated they are mentally unethical and morally compromised, leaving them to wallow in a tortured existence of depraved denial, unable to rationally except the fact they and their ideology of progressive liberalism have been rejected by the people. And worst of all for the progressive liberal being kick to the curb without the power to control others, they are nothing, even worse then nothing. They are just nobodies facing the reality of actually have to find a real job. Nothing worse then that ever, not even death. Here Are 2 of the Russian-Bought Facebook Ads That ‘Helped Sway the Election’ Eric Lieberman /
Sen. Christopher Coons, D-Del., shared two Russian-bought Facebook ads Tuesday during a congressional hearing on the foreign adversary’s attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. One post, published by a page called “Being Patriotic,” promoted an apparently phony event in Pennsylvania for “Miners for Trump” and advocated coal-mining jobs. Another alleged that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a 69 percent disapproval rate among all veterans and detailed accusations related to the 2012 Benghazi attack and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
(The two adds mentioned here were to small to read so I'm providing the link - The Slickster )
“This ad is nothing short of the Russian government directly interfering in our elections, lying to American citizens, duping folks who believe they are joining and supporting a group that is about veterans and based in Texas, when in fact it [was] paid for in rubles by Russians,” Coons said while addressing Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch. “Should Facebook be allowed to be a platform that foreign adversaries can use to run political ads, sir?”
“Senator, that advertisement has no place on Facebook and we are committed to preventing that sort of behavior from occurring again on our platform,” Stretch responded.
Facebook previously told congressional investigators that it sold $100,000 worth of ads during the 2016 campaign to a suspicious Russian firm. As Axios reporter Sara Fischer notes, that is a very small amount, especially in a two-year time span and relative to the larger, massive political advertisement ecosystem. COMMENTARY: Congress Needs to Chill Out. Those Russian Facebook Ads Didn’t Swing the Election.
“For all it’s the emotional appeal, the idea that Russia was able to change the outcome of the presidential election with a $100,000 Facebook ad buy is absurd. If it were true, then every political consultant in the U.S. would be out of a job,” Richard Bennett, a tech adviser and one of the original creators of the Wi-Fi system, said. “Hillary and her supporters spent lots of money on social media campaigns, just not as wisely as the Trump campaign. The election turned out the way it did because Hillary not only failed to win the white working class vote, she didn’t even bother to ask for it. Voters don’t like being disrespected.” Even Mark Penn, the former chief strategist for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, agreed with almost exactly the same argument.
Facebook more recently announced that content delivered by Russian operatives with possible connections to the Kremlin “reached” 126 million users. Many are misconstruing what that means by erroneously conflating “reach” with “read.” It is virtually impossible to know how many people actually saw one of those posts, as many Facebook users are often inundated with content both on the almost never-ending news feed, as well as the features and information provided on the sidebars. Users could have just scrolled past the post, or never even been logged in to be able to see the content in the first place.
And the 126 million figure “equals about four-thousandths of 1 percent (0.004 percent) of content in the news feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content,” Stretch wrote in official testimony. “Put another way, if each of these posts were a commercial on television, you’d have to watch more than 600 hours of television to see something from the IRA [the Internet Research Agency, which is accused of the dissemination].”
The general counsel for Facebook, as well as Google and Twitter, are currently in the process of testifying before congressional committees. All accepted blame for not doing enough to stop nefarious foreign actors from using their features to stoke polarization in America. In fact, they may even have empowered them with their ad services and offerings. Facebook, for example, allegedly helped advertisers with targeting by offering a template of how it perceives the U.S. population is ideologically split, according to a BuzzFeed News report.
Such a line of thought is playing a part in public officials’ recent clamoring and pushes for a legislative solution. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., pressed the respective general counsels of Facebook, Twitter, and Google during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday to answer whether they would support her recently introduced legislation that would limit their control of the advertisements on their platforms.
Although Russia appeared to be trying to actively foment divisiveness in America, the extent of the Russian-bought ads’ impact, however, is not so clear. Economists at Stanford and New York University conducted a study that showed fake news had virtually no effect on the outcome of the election. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
A teacher asks the kids in her 3rd grade class: "What do you want to be when you grow up?"
Little Larry says: "I wanna start out as a Fighter Pilot, then be a billionaire, go to the most expensive clubs, find me the finest whore, give her a Ferrari worth over a million bucks, an apartment in Copacabana, a mansion in Paris, a jet to travel throughout Europe, an Infinite Visa Card, and all the while banging her like a loose screen door in a hurricane."
The teacher, shocked and not knowing what to do with this outrageous response from little Larry, decides not to acknowledge what he said and simply tries to continue with the lesson.
Wait a minute Walter, you said you are not as cold hearted like Limbaugh and Hannity on the liberal democrats? But you are as bad as they are when you advocate for a cure for Trump Derangement Syndrome is to watch Fox News, Hannity and Trucker Carlson. With the severity of this disease that Trump has inflected on the progressives socialists democrats which has driven them into absolute despair, having suicidal thoughts and tendencies thinking they might have been wrong, you then advocate for these mentally weak apostles of stupidity and ignorant liberalism, to watch television shows that are based on reality? Walter, please say it 'aint so! Come on Walter, show some heart. In truth, if these depraved and debased immoral bastards, spawned by a mother from the depths of darkness and evil, what little sanity they would have left would assure them a quick journey to the nearest funny farm watching FOX. In truth, very few ever escape this disease, but once cured by sear will power, there is no other way, they become warriors of freedom and liberty like no other. They have been on the other side where only stupidity and evil abides, but now have journey into the light of reality. The experience of this transition from total despair into the light of knowledge and understanding is overpoweringly euphoric.
Progressive liberals have on 'safe place' to hide. They have been exposed.
This Simple Trick Will Help Liberals Get Over Trump Derangement Syndrome Walter E. Williams /
I am not nearly so coldhearted and unsympathetic toward the mainstream media as some of my conservative friends, such as Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Chris Plante, and Ann Coulter.
In fact, my heart goes out to them. As evidence of the same, if I had President Donald Trump’s ear, I’d urge him to declare this coming Tuesday, Nov. 7, a day of remembrance and order that flags be flown at half-staff on all federal buildings. Why? It will be the anniversary of what must have been a most traumatic day for mainstream media people and the political pundits they interviewed.
I am not a psychologist. However, I did take several courses in psychology and sociology as an undergraduate. Thus, I have enough training to analyze the continuing trauma resulting from last year’s presidential election.
Days before the election, ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos gleefully asked his guests about it. All except one predicted an Electoral College and popular vote landslide for Hillary Clinton.
On one MSNBC talk show, the panelists predicted a historic defeat for Trump. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow confidently and laughingly made predictions about Trump’s trouncing defeat at the hands of Clinton.
Not to be left out, there were Republicans who confidently predicted that Trump wouldn’t even win the party’s nomination, much less the presidency. There were many other highly confident election predictions of Trump’s defeat all over the internet and in the media, both national and international.
Take the gleeful discussion between Maddow and Chris Matthews just prior to the election. It would have to be pure torture to make them watch their pre-election broadcasts. Then, as election returns began to come in, showing Trump becoming the next president, there were many instances of emotional crackups. If you check out the internet, you will find dozens of instances featuring people crying and screaming and cursing the election results.
Some colleges responded to Trump’s victory by having cry-ins and primal screams. Some provided their students with therapy dogs, coloring books, Play-Doh, and videos of playful kittens and puppies, as well as serving snacks such as tea and chocolate. Some college administrators encouraged or allowed faculty to cancel or postpone exams because of the election results.
Certain people have come up with a name for the ongoing liberal response to Clinton’s defeat. They call it Trump derangement syndrome. I might point out that it’s not only leftist Democrats who are in a tizzy over the election results but also quite a few establishment Republicans.
Evidence of continuing Trump derangement syndrome can be found in the calls for his impeachment by members of Congress such as Reps. Maxine Waters, D-Ca., Al Green, D-Texas, and Brad Sherman, D-Calif.
There is a treatment for Trump derangement syndrome. Instead of watching MSNBC, CNN, ABC News, NBC News, and CBS News, one can turn to Fox News Channel and watch Bret Baier, Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity.
For newspapers, pick up The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, or the Washington Examiner. Try listening to Rush Limbaugh’s and Mark Levin’s radio shows. By no means do I recommend that liberals go cold turkey on the mainstream media. They should start out by listening to conservative media for only about five minutes per day to avoid shock.
I am normally against any kind of insurance for a pre-existing medical condition, but I’d make an exception for Trump derangement syndrome.
Finally, when I think of some of the wacky presidential predictions, my mind immediately turns to 1997, when the comet Hale-Bopp appeared. Art Bell’s paranormal radio talk show, “Coast to Coast AM,” claimed that a spacecraft was following the comet. That inspired 39 members of a San Diego cult named Heaven’s Gate, who believed that their souls could escape the doomed Earth on the spacecraft, to kill themselves.
Unfortunately for the predictors of Clinton’s landslide win over Trump, they haven’t been spared the embarrassment of being wrong.
It's a hallmark of the government that any program that is funded by tax dollars has to have a huge bureaucracy to make it function properly. After all, with thousands of people across the nations serving the needs of the people for such a great program like OgbjmaCare, what could go wrong? Waste and inefficiency? What? Where? A program, like OgbjmaCare, that cost 10's of $billions of dollars just to implement and billions more to fix it and function and then it's main strong point, the Exchanges failing from the beginning, people wondering what is going on. And if that's not enough, after one of the main designers, Johnathon Gruber stating he had to lie about this fantastic healthcare program as the public was just to ''stupid'' to grasps the fundamental aspect of such a dynamic program and how it will benefit them. And as we all know and understand now, OgbjmaCare was designed to fail by the democrats and it has in spectacular fashion. Now members of the progressive collective are advocating for ''single payer'' healthcare. The final nail in the coffin of healthcare in America. What could go wrong with government controlled healthcare? Really? One has to ask that question in light of all government programs coming from socialist democrats over that last 60 years? Trump Right to Scale Back Obamacare’s Recruitment Mechanism Whitney Jones /
Wednesday, Nov. 1 will mark the beginning of the next open enrollment period in the Obamacare exchanges. This will be the first enrollment season since the Trump administration changed the enrollment process and scaled back the “navigator” program.
The navigator program is a federal initiative designed to guide Obamacare enrollees as they jump through the system’s bureaucratic hoops, steering them to the health insurance program that best suits their needs. Advocates of the navigator program were dismayed at President Donald Trump’s decision to cut funding for the program, claiming the cuts will “sabotage” Obamacare and block people from enrolling.
This narrative is simply false.
When Obamacare first launched, the navigators had a large customer base as millions of people were trying to figure out whether they qualified for the expanded Medicaid program or the new federal subsidies for insurance plans offered through the exchanges.
The vast majority of new customers were steered into Medicaid. But the stampede was short-lived.
Medicaid enrollment in the 24 states and District of Columbia states grew by 23.6 percent in 2014, but then by only 3.5 percent in 2015 and 1.1 percent in 2016.
That overall trend played out quite similarly at the individual state level. In Maryland, for instance, Medicaid rolls expanded by more than a third in 2014, but in the very next year, they only expanded by 2 percent. The pattern was similar on the new health insurance exchanges.
In 2014, over 5 million people received subsidized exchange coverage. That figure grew to 7.4 million in 2015, but the following year it only grew to 7.6 million. Moreover, many people who enrolled on the exchanges did so without the help of navigators. Instead, they chose to use licensed insurance agents or simply enrolled on their own, either online or in-person.
In California, for example—a state viewed as a model for running the exchanges—the government aggressively implemented Obamacare in 2014. But in the first year, California’s navigators enrolled only 9 percent of exchange enrollees. Over 40 percent of enrollees signed up without help, and 40 percent received help from licensed agents. The following year, only 7 percent of enrollees used navigators, 36 percent enrolled by themselves, and 47 percent were enrolled by a licensed agent.
Not only is foot traffic for the navigators down, more and more of it is moving away from the insurance exchanges. Soaring coverage costs are driving individuals out of the market. Today, there are half a million fewer Americans in the exchanges than last year.
And not only do navigators have fewer customers to serve, they have fewer products to sell. Like the customers they had hoped to serve, insurers are pulling out of the exchanges, too. As a result, many Americans not already insured through work or enrolled in government health programs find themselves in Obamacare exchanges that offer only one or two options for coverage. With choices that limited, most people don’t need a navigator’s help to pick one.
While the navigators’ customer base has declined dramatically—resulting in less need for their services—they still retained a hefty budget. The navigators received their funding from a 3.5 percent user fee paid by those participating in the exchanges. Those fees amounted to $62.5 million in funding last year, up $2.5 million from the previous year. In light of these facts, the president decided to cut navigator funding by 40 percent and infuse more accountability into the program.
Moving forward, funding will be based on performance and will reflect how well navigators assist the uninsured in finding health coverage. For example, if the navigators reach only 45 percent of their enrollment goals, their funding for the following year will be set at 45 percent of the previous year’s allotment.
The 40 percent cuts will force many navigator programs to lay off staff and reduce outreach services. And that’s as it should be. The data clearly show the Obamacare exchanges have maxed out on all the coverage gains they can produce. Congress should now concentrate on reforming Obamacare in ways that will provide relief—and options—for those who have to rely on the exchanges for coverage.
One way of doing so would be to cut the 3.5 percent user fee. If navigators aren’t being used to enroll, why should enrollees be charged a fee for their services?
Right-sizing spending on the navigator program is a good thing. Like most federal programs, it can use a healthy dose of accountability, one that ties funding to performance.
Progressive socialists. The face of ethical and moral corruption.
I know a lot of information is out now on how the corruption of the justice department and the FBI under the Barack administration has proven to be beyond belief as to it's totality. But this article does a good job of laying out in historical detail what has transpired over more the decade of progressive democrats hiding information from congress and the public on everything that the Clintons, the Ogbjmas and their buddies in the progressive socialist liberal democrat collective have been doing to destroy the moral fiber and justice system in this country. Take a few minutes and absorb just how infested with progressive liberal corruption our government has really become. What trust we might have had in our government is now a thing of the past given decades of democrats at the levers of power..
7 Questions the Justice Department Must Answer About Uranium One and Clinton Foundation Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky /
While the media’s attention has shifted to the indictment of Paul Manafort, the Obama administration’s handling of the Uranium One “bribery plot” (as The Hill called it in a startling expose) raises serious, critical questions that must be answered about the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation.
These questions can only be answered if Congress fulfills its oversight obligation by conducting an intense, serious investigation, and if the current leadership in the Justice Department cooperates by providing all of the information needed to fully explain what happened, and doesn’t try to obstruct the investigation.
First, a short timeline. According to The Hill, the FBI gathered substantial evidence in 2009 (when the bureau was under the direction of Robert Mueller) that officials in the Russian nuclear industry were using bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering to grow its “atomic energy business inside the United States.”
That included routing “millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton” served on the federal government’s Committee on Foreign Investments.
In 2010, that committee, which consists of representatives from 14 U.S. government agencies and included Hillary Clinton and then-Attorney General Eric Holder, approved the purchase by the Russians of the Uranium One mining company, giving them control of about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production.
In 2011, the same committee approved the sale of commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants by Tenex, a subsidiary of Rosatom, a Russian nuclear company controlled by the Russian government. This sale to a hostile foreign government occurred despite the fact that the U.S. only produces about one-fifth of the uranium it needs for its nuclear plants, which in turn produce one-fifth of the country’s power generation needs.
The FBI even had a U.S. businessman as an informant who was making kickback payments (with the permission of the FBI) at the direction of Vadim Mikerin, the key Russian official overseeing the expansion of the Russian nuclear industry into the U.S. through Rosatom.
The first kickback payment, according to the FBI, was in November 2009. The bribes and kickbacks also involved an American uranium-trucking firm. The FBI imposed a nondisclosure agreement on the informant that was only recently voided by the FBI after Congress sought his testimony. Yet none of the evidence that the FBI had about this “racketeering scheme”—which is what it was called in an affidavit by an Energy Department agent assigned to assist the FBI in the case—was brought to the attention of the Committee on Foreign Investment in 2010 or 2011 by Holder.
Recall that as attorney general, Holder was responsible for overseeing the FBI and its investigations.
None of the information about the millions of dollars being routed to the Clinton Foundation was brought to the attention of the committee by Hillary Clinton. And no congressional intelligence committees were briefed about it either, according to The Hill’s story.
Mikerin was not indicted until 2014, along with several executives from the trucking firm. Mikerin was only charged with a single count of money laundering, not with paying multiple bribes or soliciting multiple kickbacks.
A plea deal was reached in 2015 and made public through a press release in August of that year. The plea agreement cited only transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012 after the Committee on Foreign Investment’s approval of the Russian uranium sales, despite the fact that the corruption had started in 2004.
The final court case, according to The Hill, “made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation.”
This summary of the case raises important questions:
Why didn’t Holder or Mueller brief the Committee on Foreign Investment about the bribery and kickbacks being engineered by Rosatom when it was seeking approval of its purchase of Uranium One in 2010 or its sale of uranium to American nuclear plants by Tenex in 2011?
Why weren’t the House or Senate intelligence committees informed? The FBI and the Justice Department already had their informant in place in 2009 and already had evidence of the corruption.
Why was the indictment and prosecution of Mikerin delayed, and why did the Justice Department allow this racketeering enterprise that corrupted the American uranium industry to continue for five years?
Why were the possible charges against Mikerin reduced?
Why was the evidence of attempted influence peddling suppressed and not made a part of the prosecution or mentioned in the plea agreement?
Why did the FBI force a nondisclosure agreement on its informant, particularly because it was apparently the informant that first contacted the FBI to tell it what was going on?
Who was the lawyer at the Justice Department who made this decision? And if the Justice Department can provide some law enforcement justification for it, why did it extend beyond the end of the case?
If a law enforcement investigation is ongoing, a nondisclosure agreement might be justified to prevent the informant from publicizing the investigation and sabotaging the prosecution. But this case was over in 2015—there is no evidence of any ongoing investigation beyond that date. Without a credible explanation, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than it was a political decision intended to cover up what happened.
Who can answer all of these questions? That would be Holder, Mueller, and the other federal officials involved in the case.
The Justice Department has already made the right decision about the informant. On Oct. 25, it released him from the gag order and told him he could testify before Congress. Now, the Justice Department needs to turn over its complete file on the investigation and prosecution.
The bottom line question that needs to be answered is this: Why did the Obama administration approve the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium industry to a company owned by the government of a hostile country headed by a dictator when our Justice Department and our FBI knew that government had engaged in a corrupt, criminal conspiracy to get that foothold in America?
It is up to Congress to find out.
I'm an American citizen and I love this country that has given me everything. I believe that America is the last hope in this world for Democracy and Freedom. She must be defended at all costs!
