Connect with us

Media

Those screaming about Trump drown out legitimate concerns

Published

on

Those screaming about Trump drown out legitimate concerns

“Donald Trump is going to kill us all!”

That isn’t a quote from anyone in particular, but the cacophony of screams heard out of everyone from mainstream media to Democrats in DC to right-leaning #NeverTrumper invariably points to the notion that given enough time in office, the President of the United States is going to get us all killed. They may not be that dramatic, but their arguments can be extended out to yield this undesirable end result.

Then again, some of them are being that dramatic.

I am a Federalist. I’m also very clear in my discernment of President Trump’s actions and lack of actions; some have been good, others have been bad. These two qualifiers allow me and others to voice concerns about the GOP in general and the President in particular that deserve a measure of attention. The principles of limiting government, defending freedoms, and protecting life that Federalists (and most true conservatives) believe in are being ignored. in DC.

Here’s the problem. We’re not being heard through the noise, nor are these messages receiving any measure of attention.

It’s a legitimate concern for conservatives and Federalists when DC continues to increase spending, but those concerns apparently aren’t newsworthy when the President lashes out at his latest Twitter victim. DC overreach is quietly expanding, but meltdowns on the left and cheers on the right about things like net neutrality make both sides oblivious to the expansion. Power is being consolidated in DC as fast as if not faster than it was during the Obama, Bush, and Clinton years.

The other day I received word of news that flew completely under my radar.

The order targets specific people but leaves a very broad scope through which anyone deemed to be participating in human rights abuses or corruption could have their property seized. Some fake news outlets even reported this was intended to allow the President to seize assets from the Obamas and the Clintons. While technically this order could lead to such an event, it’s not intended for that purpose. However, the broadness of powers that it grants to the executive branch epitomizes what we’re seeing in DC. When the White House or Congress wants to be able to do something outside of their scope, they simply decree that they can and it is so.

This isn’t about my complaints towards Trump or the GOP. This is about the disservice being done by those “in the know” and the complacency of those wanting to fear from these people. Whether it’s mainstream media, pundits on both sides, or politicians themselves, they’re too focused on inconsequential things and using their platforms to blast out unimportant messages. It isn’t just those complaining about the President. It’s the people defending him as well.

Everyone seems to have a very important opinion about Michael Wolff or Steve Bannon, but very few are talking about the infrastructure plan. There are two primary differences between these two topics:

  1. One is interesting in a gossipy sort of way while the other is boring.
  2. One is extremely important and will affect the vast majority of Americans, and one is so inconsequential that its only effect will be on book sales.

Unfortunately, there’s no correlation between the importance of the topic and the amount of commentary or debate devoted to it.

This is a microcosm of the entire Trump presidency so far. If it’s important but not juicy, it gets no play. If it’s something with no real impact other than embarrassing the President, the press is all over it. Unfortunately, they’re not the only ones to blame. Media consumers are aiding them in this farce by focusing on the topics they want us to discuss.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. ed

    January 7, 2018 at 4:47 pm

    Given Trump’s (and Jared Kushner’s family’s) extensively documented ties to Russian money-laundering and Russian Mob members, It appears that both He and Kushner’s financial empires are subject to this new EO.

    I suspect that Mueller ALREADY has enough evidence (from Manafort, Stone, Cohn, & Miller) to tie both Trump and Kushner to enough bribery, corruption and foreign influence (heck – just Trump’s attempts to bribe Putin for participation in his Trump Tower Moscow project) would likely meet the low bar of his EO.

    Thank you for posting this as it it DOES appear to be a loaded weapon that could (and with Trump’s thin-skin and vindictive personality likely WILL) be used against US Citizens to freeze their financial assets until they bow to Trump and do his bidding. We see some of this abuse already with the Trump-cult reaction against Bannon and Trump continuing to fan the flames of Bannon-hatred via his Twitter account.

    I suspect we have our first dictator in all-but-name and Gen Kelley does not seem to be able to contain him sufficiently.

    I also notice there was no sunset provision to Trump’s EO, so it will remain available to future Democrat presidents that wish to personally destroy THEIR rivals as well….

    This is a scary document. Thank you for highlighting it so we can be aware. (I still put my faith in God and in the many, many veterans and LEOs (retired and active) that remain armed and prepared for an attempted coup out of Wash DC.

    With Trump attacking the Judicial branch and now seeing a Congressional faction lined up to attack anyone that criticizes Trump, Wash DC is starting to look a LOT like Erdogen’s Turkey did just last year (before Erdogen carried out his coup and made himself dictator for life).

  2. ed

    January 7, 2018 at 5:16 pm

    I was looking at some of Trump’s other recent actions:

    Presidential Memorandum for the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
    ECONOMY & JOBS (Issued on: December 8, 2017): This appears to require that SBA NOT report to congress on the impact of Trump’s NAFTA renegotiations until AFTER negotiations are complete. This appears to be Trump attempting to remove the ability of SBA to inform Congress of issues that could be resolved during negotiations so Trump can present a (possibly big-business-only) treaty for up-or-down vote, doing harm to small businesses in the short term instead of allowing Congress to influence his negotiations to include small-business concerns.

    Contrary to popular reports:
    Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State
    FOREIGN POLICY (Issued on: December 6, 2017) delays for yet another 6 months the Embassy move to Jerusalem. Regardless of what Trump says or his cult believes, Trump has once again (just as Obama has done) signed the waiver to avoid moving the Embassy.

    HOWEVER: When I checked the public law 104-45 (https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ45/PLAW-104publ45.pdf), I find that Trump failed to justify his waiver or to discuss the speicfic interests or security issues in his waiver as required by that public law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Conservatism

The complete fraud that is National Socialist Healthcare

Published

on

By

The complete fraud that is National Socialist Healthcare

The home state of Mr. ‘Medifail for All’ tried National Socialist healthcare and it didn’t work. What is the point of ever trying it again?

One would think that the operation of a socialist health care system in the home of Bernie ‘Medifail for all’ Sanders would be touted until the bovines hit the barn. Well, one would be wrong in that assumption since it never worked as advertised.

The Washington Post recently profiled the rise and spectacular fall of ‘Green Mountain Care’ from the fantastic promises at its inception to its inevitable crash as is the case with every socialist system. The Vermont rendition of single payer – a state version of National Socialist Healthcare – came onto the scene with great promise and fanfare. The problem is that states are forbidden to counterfeit [oops! ‘print’] currency, so they quickly ran out of other people’s money and the whole rotten edifice collapsed.

Why Vermont’s single-payer effort failed and what Democrats can learn from it
Three and a half years after then-Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont signed into law a vision for the nation’s first single-payer health system, his small team was still struggling to find a way to pay for it.

Two days later, on Dec. 17, 2014, Shumlin, a Democrat who had swept into office promising a health-care system that left no one uninsured, announced he was giving up.

The trajectory of Green Mountain Care, as Vermont’s health system was to be known — from the euphoric spring of 2011 to its crash landing in late 2014 — offers sobering lessons for the current crop of Democrats running for president, including Vermont’s own Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), most of whom embrace Medicare-for-all or other aspirations for universal insurance coverage.

[Our Emphasis]
Oddly enough, the local socialist Senator rarely mentions this when trying to sell everyone else on this statist snake oil. Those with a modicum of intelligence tend to learn from the colossal mistakes of others, implementing what works while rejecting that which does not. Then there are those on the Left who insanely insist on repeating those mistakes, hoping for a counterintuitive outcome.

This is no academic exercise, born of the Platonic dialogs from 2,400 years ago on the ‘Ideal state’. This is a deadly serious matter with millions of people’s lives at stake. Not to mention that as reported by the Associated-Press that ‘Medicare for all’ was projected to cost $32.6 trillion.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for all” plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, requiring historic tax hikes, says a study released Monday by a university-based libertarian policy center.

That’s trillion with a “T.”

Optimal conditions – and single payer still failed

One couldn’t ask for better conditions for this failed experiment in state socialist health care. The same report from the Washington post on this failed experiment noted that:

It has some of the nation’s healthiest residents, with some of the lowest rates of uninsured. It is small and homogeneous. It shares a border with Canada, putting an existing single-payer system within sight. And it has just one main insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, repeatedly ranked the most efficient Blue Cross Blue Shield plan in the nation.

It was supposed to lower costs, insure more people while eliminating waste, fraud and abuse [Stop us if you’ve heard this joke before]. Unsurprisingly, it failed to do this. Nevertheless, the hometown senator of this communist catastrophe still touts the same ‘features’ in trying to sell his $32.6 trillion pipe dream.

Unfortunately for the purveyors of these plans presumably fueled by pixie dust and allusions to brand new ‘rights’ conjured up out of thin air the author of the piece failed to offer a solution aside from ‘controlling costs’ [read: death panels] or counterfeiting.. er.. ‘printing’ more money to endlessly throw into the bottomless pit that is the government.

It ran into all manner of problems, including what to do with people coming in over the border for all the free goodies [Stop us if you’ve also heard this one before]. Ever increasing tax rates hobbling the economy, ending with the fact that the costs of a bloated bureaucracy would mean less coverage that what the people already had.

Ironically enough, when the whole system died an inglorious death, Bernie Sanders was in Iowa testing the presidential waters, never mentioning the failure of single payer in his home state, the very idea that he incessantly touts. Why bother with facts and logic when one can just invoke counterfeit civil rights, paid for with other people’s money?

Meanwhile, the ‘objective’ media cheerleads for socialistic slavery

Still, this hasn’t stopped the ever ‘objective’ national socialist media from writing ‘News’ stories on the subject, such as this sickening saccharine piece from the Associated-Press ‘Medicare for All’s’ rich benefits ‘leapfrog’ other nations.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Generous benefits. No copays. No need for private policies. The “Medicare for All” plan advocated by leading 2020 Democrats appears more lavish than what’s offered in other advanced countries, compounding the cost but also potentially broadening its popular appeal.

Reading that infomercial for socialism, one can almost imagine the rise of a superhero in the guise of a later-day superman. The virtual embodiment of every wonderful feature of ‘Medifail for all’ vanquishing every cost overrun, taking down the ever evil private health insurance monster, providing free healthcare for all while dispensing Mocha Lattes on the side.

Faster than a speeding cost overrun. More powerful than free enterprise. Able to heap benefits to all in a single bound.

Look! Up in the sky! It’s a bird. It’s a plane It’s Single payer socialism! Here to save the day…. Until it implodes the economy.

After which, no one is helped.  How is that compassion?

Single payer can never work

Sadly, the author of the Washington post piece failed to cite how to get the bloated edifice off the ground. This is because there is no way to get it to fly.

The proper way to address this problem is to try a different direction, away from authoritarian socialism and towards economic Liberty. Conjuring up new civil rights does little to pay for all the freebies. As way experienced with a single payer experiment under ideal conditions, the end result was worse than what already existed.

There is no point in trying something that is doomed to failure, single payer [or whatever it’s called] can never work as advertised.

The Takeaway

It should be obvious that a governmental solution to the problem does not exist. Thus, it only makes sense to try a different approach. This won’t empower the Socialist-Left, but they claim to only have everyone’s best interests at heart. Let them show that is the case with a system based on economic Liberty instead of socialistic slavery.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Healthcare

Shocking NY Times headline calls evil good and good evil

Published

on

Shocking NY Times headline calls evil good and good evil

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20

There are four tactics favored by many mainstream media outlets, including the NY Times, that help them fulfill their two primary goals. Let’s start with their goals since they’re blatant: get more eyeballs for their paid subscription model and help Democrats win elections.

How do they do this? They have standard journalistic strategies that work for them well because they’ve been around for so long. They have access to people, manpower to cover stories, and resources to acquire assets necessary to make their stories popular. Those are the positive strategies they use, strategies that every news outlet strives to benefit from to various degrees. But they also use four tactics that help them with their secondary goal of pushing the left’s agenda:

  1. Shock headlines. While they rarely go as far as smaller outlets or tabloids, they are masters among the “big boys” at generating headlines to make their points.
  2. Credible experts with an agenda. One can argue that this is a technique all good outlets use to push their various agendas, but nobody is as adept at it as the New York Times. For example, if they’re pushing global warming, they get the best activists with science studies degrees to push the narrative.
  3. Manipulative statistics. Again, this is a common tactic, but the NY Times has mastered it. They have stat-finders on staff who comb the various studies of the world to find data that supports their premise. If that sounds natural, let’s not forget the idea should be the other way around. They should use statistics to form their premise.
  4. Begging the question. Contrary to the popular use of the phrase, it actually refers to a logical fallacy in which a premise becomes the basis of evidence for the premise. Similar to circular reasoning, it assumes a disputed notion to be factually correct.

In one editorial they published yesterday, they used the four tactics all at once. The title of the story is, “Pregnancy Kills. Abortion Saves Lives.”

I won’t link to it.

The article itself is an exercise in begging the question. For the statement in the headline to be remotely true, one has to assume that the preborn baby that’s aborted is not a life. If it were a life, then the statement would be (and in fact, is) ludicrous.

Of course, it obviously makes excellent use of the first tactic, the shock headline. I rarely read anything from their news outlet anymore, but it got me to click through and read it. When I did, I realized exactly what they were doing. First, they used the second tactic, a credible expert with an agenda, to not only help with the article but to actually write it. In this case, the expert is Dr. Warren M. Hern. His expertise is being a physician and epidemiologist who specializes in late-abortion “services.”

Dr. Hern proceeds to use the third tactic, manipulative statistics, to make his point that abortions are less likely to kill the mother than pregnancy or childbirth. Is it true? Absolutely. I learned this myself when my wife nearly died as our fifth child was lost in a miscarriage. Both pregnancy and childbirth are risks to mothers, much more so than abortions.

Nobody can dispute this fact. But the way this fact and others are framed, such as a statistic showing African-American women were more likely to die as a result of pregnancy than Caucasian women, were intended to be terrifying to mothers and to support his claim that pregnancy kills the mother at a higher rate than abortion.

But again, his entire argument relies on the notion that the child in the womb is not actually a life.

We are faced with a society in which a large percentage feel the same way. They have to in order to maintain their own self-perception of not doing harm to another human. Otherwise, abortion becomes murder. The only way it can’t be seen as murder is if the baby inside the mother isn’t seen as life.

This is why it’s so very important we start looking at abortion in America as more than just a political or even religious issue. It’s a cultural issue, one in which we are failing to deliver the right message. Most people can be made to appreciate the value of the life within the womb if they’re allowed to look beyond the politics. They are getting bombarded with the same two messages. Pro-abortion activists say they’re defending women’s rights. Pro-life activists say they’re defending the baby’s rights. Both arguments can have merit based on how a person perceives the baby in the womb. If it’s seen as a life, it’s hard to say that life has no right to live. If it’s seen as a parasite, clump of cells, or “potential” human, then the rights of the mother prevail.

Articles like this one in the NY Times are meant to change the way culture perceives abortion. We must fight back by continuing to push reality, that a baby in the womb is a life. We have the truth on our side. It’s time to use it.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

Why Democrats will drag out impeachment for as long as they possibly can

Published

on

Why Democrats will drag out impeachment for as long as they possibly can

Democrats have been playing a dangerous game of politicizing their efforts towards and against impeachment ever since they won control of the House of Representatives with the 2018 midterm elections. They have all the information they need in order to make a definitive decision about whether to impeach President Trump, but they continue to delay. Their reason is very plain: They want the news cycle to stay focused on their efforts until something else other than illegal immigration can come along and save them.

We’ve actually talked about this once or twice before, but it bears repeating and reframing as more the process evolves.

The crisis at our southern border has been untenable for several months as reports of increases in migrants and decreases in options make it crystal clear the policies of the Democrats and the failure of the Republicans to change them have encouraged the breach of our borders. The blame may fall on both sides’ failures over time, but the current stance of the GOP and the constant proclamations of the President put the full brunt of the responsibility on the left’s open borders policies.

Whether Americans support impeachment or not is actually irrelevant to the Democrats. They want things to stay in the middle on the issue, ebbing and flowing between support and opposition. The longer they can keep the media focused on their latest set of subpoenas or new voices calling for impeachment, the easier it is for them to ignore the border crisis. It’s their crisis. They own it. But they don’t want to pay politically in either direction for it.

They can’t do anything about it because doing so would be to admit the President was right. They can’t ignore it indefinitely because eventually it will be so big that mainstream media will be forced to move impeachment talks to page two while they focus on the crisis. Between the two options, Democrats are hoping to avoid the second by ignoring the first. They believe if they can keep media looking at the Mueller report and screaming about obstruction, something will eventually happen that’s even bigger than the border crisis. War with Iran? Economic collapse? Big mass shooting? Another abortion bill? Whatever it is, they’re using impeachment talk to fill in the gaps.

Democrats have to keep talking about impeachment and doing impeachment-related activities without actually impeaching. Once they pull the trigger, it’ll be over soon enough and Americans will look at other news like the border crisis.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending