Death panels: Sarah Palin was right-the ‘death panels’ may be the only part of obamacare to die

.23Ih.,b11

Obamacare “repeal and replace” may have failed this year, but that doesn’t mean the Affordable Care Act can’t be significantly defanged. For example, there is still time to excise the Independent Payment Advisory Board from the law before it is up and running.

IPAB’s stated purpose is to contain Medicare costs, a laudable goal. But the powers granted to the presidentially appointed and confirmed commissioners subvert democratic accountability and violate our constitutional system of separation of powers. They could, one day, be weaponized to implement invidious medical discrimination mandates—e.g., health-care rationing.

Unlike members of most bureaucratic boards, IPAB commissioners do not have to comply with such typical administrative procedures as obtaining public comment. Rather, when projected Medicare expenses exceed a given amount—which has not yet happened since Obamacare’s passage, hence its quiescence—IPAB is required to submit a cost-cutting proposal to Congress by the following January 15, which, in turn, must be introduced as enabling legislation without change by House and Senate majority leaders the same day it is received. By April 1, the relevant committees must complete their consideration of the legislation. Any committee that fails to meet that deadline will be discharged from further involvement in the matter. Congress is handcuffed from considering any legislation or amendment that does not meet the IPAB financial targets or that would repeal or change the fast-track process without a three-fifths majority (60 votes) of the Senate. Non-germane amendments are not permitted.

In its area of jurisdiction, IPAB is more powerful than the president, Congress, and the courts. If Congress does not pass the proposal before August 15—or if the president vetoes the proposal passed by Congress—the original IPAB recommendations automatically go into effect. And take note: Once enacted, the IPAB mandate is not subject to administrative or judicial review. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

At present, IPAB is precluded from changing Medicare benefits or revising eligibility standards—i.e., it cannot ration care. That leaves few means of reducing costs other than altering reimbursement formulas to doctors and hospitals. But these limitations should not make us sanguine, as they were politically necessary for IPAB to be included in the ACA. There is every reason to believe that IPAB was never intended to remain so constrained.

Not long after the ACA went into effect, President Obama called for the “strengthening” of IPAB’s power, while former members of his administration urged that IPAB be given more authority. Christina D. Romer, the former chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, argued in the July 21, 2012, New York Times that IPAB be allowed to “suggest”—which would really mean “impose,” as the board’s “suggestions” are quasi-mandates—“changes in benefits or in how Medicare services are provided.” That sure smells like health-care rationing to me.

Steven Rattner, a counselor to the Treasury secretary during the Obama years—and a frequent panelist these days on MSNBC’s Morning Joe—more explicitly advocated granting IPAB the power to ration. In 2012, he took to the pages of the Gray Lady to declare, “We need death panels,” lamenting that IPAB’s inability to ration care was a “problem” requiring a remedy:

Medicare needs to take a cue from Willie Sutton, who reportedly said he robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The big money in Medicare is in .  .  . reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes a quarter of the program’s budget.

And get this:

No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with the price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and families to try for every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled—including Canada, Australia and New Zealand—have systems for rationing care.

Extolled by technocrats like Rattner, perhaps. But I doubt many Americans want rationing.

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the country’s most influential bioethicists and a prime architect of Obamacare, wrote as far back as 1996 that health care “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” This is a typical mindset among bioethicist “experts” who would likely be appointed to create IPAB’s cost-cutting mandates.

IPAB’s autocratic power makes it the perfect health-care rationing board, impervious to popular—and even elected officials’—objections. That is why it must be excised from the law regardless of the ultimate fate of Obamacare. The good news is that the administration generally supports IPAB’s repeal. And a measure to do just that, the Protecting Seniors’ Access to Health Care Act (HR 849) introduced by physician Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), has passed the Ways and Means Committee and enjoys bipartisan support, with some 265 cosponsors in the House—including 43 Democrats.

Let us hope that the bill soon makes it to the president’s desk. The best time to slay a dragon is when it is still in its egg.

source-weekly std, wesley smith, steven rattner, msnbc, willie sutton, ezekiel emanuel,

Advertisements

Byungjin: how north Korea fools the media-how Kim Jong-un plays the American media.

–47jh.,

Since this spring, Kim’s regime has invited several media organs to visit Pyongyang. It’s no coincidence who’s been let in—North Korea is the most repressive country on the planet, and it screens visitors with military precision. The regime has been shrewd in its choice of invitees: All are representatives of what the president would call “fake news,” but what are more generally known as the legacy or establishment media. And as hobbled as these once-towering giants may be, they’re still influential: Even if the president doesn’t cotton to it, what they report matters, because it informs the opinions of elite policymakers as well as an educated, politically active segment of the public.

An early and frequent visitor has been CNN’s Will Ripley. In May, Ripley, who has steadfastly refused to answer questions from this magazine about his reporting, uncritically quoted a North Korean who claimed the well-known fact that families of defectors are sent to labor camps is “100 percent evil propaganda.” In the same interview, which CNN admits “was organized by the [North Korean] government,” another North Korean said, “Our society is one big family with leader Kim Jong Un as the father.” Scintillating stuff.

The regime was evidently pleased with what it saw: Ripley has been invited back to Pyongyang on several occasions—he’s been there 15 times in all—and was even allowed to film a one-hour documentary there. (“Ripley speaks to a resident who has witnessed many of these missile launches and says it gives him ‘great pride’ when he sees a missile in the sky,” the promotional material gushes.) Contrast that with the experience of Anna Fifield, a Washington Post correspondent and former Financial Times journalist with deep knowledge of Korea. She has reported critically from the country and even live-streamed an unauthorized video from Pyongyang on a visit there. She was denied a visa on her most recent attempt to enter North Korea.

Ripley’s reportage from North Korea has set the template for the dual messages the regime is sending through its American media emissaries. One: Life for North Koreans is good, and improving, thanks to the benevolence and wisdom of Kim Jong-un. And two: North Korea is a fearsome, nuclear-armed state, and the United States had better not mess with it. Not coincidentally, this coincides with Kim Jong-un’s Byungjin policy: simultaneous economic and military development. (His father, by contrast, was widely understood to have lavished resources on the military while the civilian economy withered.) North Korea coverage these days is Byungjin in English.

Evan Osnos of the New Yorker also brought home Byungjin. Osnos is no Ripley—he’s a terrific reporter who was long based in Beijing and has a real understanding of Asia. He visited North Korea this fall and, like the CNN correspondent, found a regime boastful of its military capabilities. “The United States is not the only country that can wage a preventive war,” one foreign ministry official told him. Message received. Osnos also told of a capital city that appears in many ways to be thriving. “On the streets of Pyongyang, there are flashes of modernity, even style. Some women can be seen wearing stilettos and short skirts. .  .  . Now and then, I saw people hunched over cell phones.” (Pyongyang, by the way, is a world apart from most of the rest of North Korea, which remains desperately poor.)

The gold standard of Byungjin journalism was demonstrated this month by New York Times columnist Nick Kristof, who has just returned from North Korea. While still in the country, Kristof posted numerous photos on Instagram attesting to North Korea’s economic progress under the Dauphin’s leadership. A water park, an amusement park ride, and a tasty-looking pizza all made the grade—this in a country still suffering from grievous food shortages.

Kristof’s subsequent column, published a few days after his return, told the other part of the North Korean story. “North Korea is galvanizing its people to expect a nuclear war with the United States. .  .  . This military mobilization is accompanied by the ubiquitous assumption that North Korea could not only survive a nuclear conflict, but also win it,” he wrote. “ ‘The situation on the Korean Peninsula is on the eve of the breakout of nuclear war,’ Choe, the Foreign Ministry official, told me. ‘We can survive’ such a war, he added, and he and other officials said that it was not the right time for talks with the U.S.”

Unfortunately, unlike Osnos and Ripley, Kristof is an opinion writer, and he came back advocating many—though not exclusively—positions that would surely please Pyongyang. He touts “talks without conditions,” for instance, a longstanding goal of the regime.

The missives of Kristof and others are fulfilling another regime goal: Byungjin is what Pyongyang wants the world to see. But is it real? Is North Korea’s military truly ferocious, or would it fold in the face of confrontation? Are North Koreans—even the few fortunate ones in Pyongyang—actually happy with Kim Jong-un’s policies of nukes and circuses, or is there widespread discontent? Alas, Byungjin reporting brings us no closer to any insight on these deeply important questions.

But judged by its own standards, North Korea’s press strategy is undoubtedly working—its message is clear and being amplified. Given that, we can probably await Pyongyang dispatches from Lawrence O’Donnell or Ruth Marcus in the coming days. Though of course, if the regime really wants to affect President Trump’s thinking, it should probably invite the cast of Fox & Friends for a Pyongyang sojourn instead.

source– weekly std, ethan epstein, cnn, will ripley, anna fifield, wash post, new yorker, evan osnos, nick kristof, nyt,

Death panels: Sarah Palin was right-the ‘death panels’ may be the only part of obamacare to die

.23Ih.,b11

Obamacare “repeal and replace” may have failed this year, but that doesn’t mean the Affordable Care Act can’t be significantly defanged. For example, there is still time to excise the Independent Payment Advisory Board from the law before it is up and running.

IPAB’s stated purpose is to contain Medicare costs, a laudable goal. But the powers granted to the presidentially appointed and confirmed commissioners subvert democratic accountability and violate our constitutional system of separation of powers. They could, one day, be weaponized to implement invidious medical discrimination mandates—e.g., health-care rationing.

Unlike members of most bureaucratic boards, IPAB commissioners do not have to comply with such typical administrative procedures as obtaining public comment. Rather, when projected Medicare expenses exceed a given amount—which has not yet happened since Obamacare’s passage, hence its quiescence—IPAB is required to submit a cost-cutting proposal to Congress by the following January 15, which, in turn, must be introduced as enabling legislation without change by House and Senate majority leaders the same day it is received. By April 1, the relevant committees must complete their consideration of the legislation. Any committee that fails to meet that deadline will be discharged from further involvement in the matter. Congress is handcuffed from considering any legislation or amendment that does not meet the IPAB financial targets or that would repeal or change the fast-track process without a three-fifths majority (60 votes) of the Senate. Non-germane amendments are not permitted.

In its area of jurisdiction, IPAB is more powerful than the president, Congress, and the courts. If Congress does not pass the proposal before August 15—or if the president vetoes the proposal passed by Congress—the original IPAB recommendations automatically go into effect. And take note: Once enacted, the IPAB mandate is not subject to administrative or judicial review. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

At present, IPAB is precluded from changing Medicare benefits or revising eligibility standards—i.e., it cannot ration care. That leaves few means of reducing costs other than altering reimbursement formulas to doctors and hospitals. But these limitations should not make us sanguine, as they were politically necessary for IPAB to be included in the ACA. There is every reason to believe that IPAB was never intended to remain so constrained.

Not long after the ACA went into effect, President Obama called for the “strengthening” of IPAB’s power, while former members of his administration urged that IPAB be given more authority. Christina D. Romer, the former chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, argued in the July 21, 2012, New York Times that IPAB be allowed to “suggest”—which would really mean “impose,” as the board’s “suggestions” are quasi-mandates—“changes in benefits or in how Medicare services are provided.” That sure smells like health-care rationing to me.

Steven Rattner, a counselor to the Treasury secretary during the Obama years—and a frequent panelist these days on MSNBC’s Morning Joe—more explicitly advocated granting IPAB the power to ration. In 2012, he took to the pages of the Gray Lady to declare, “We need death panels,” lamenting that IPAB’s inability to ration care was a “problem” requiring a remedy:

Medicare needs to take a cue from Willie Sutton, who reportedly said he robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The big money in Medicare is in .  .  . reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes a quarter of the program’s budget.

And get this:

No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with the price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and families to try for every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled—including Canada, Australia and New Zealand—have systems for rationing care.

Extolled by technocrats like Rattner, perhaps. But I doubt many Americans want rationing.

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the country’s most influential bioethicists and a prime architect of Obamacare, wrote as far back as 1996 that health care “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” This is a typical mindset among bioethicist “experts” who would likely be appointed to create IPAB’s cost-cutting mandates.

IPAB’s autocratic power makes it the perfect health-care rationing board, impervious to popular—and even elected officials’—objections. That is why it must be excised from the law regardless of the ultimate fate of Obamacare. The good news is that the administration generally supports IPAB’s repeal. And a measure to do just that, the Protecting Seniors’ Access to Health Care Act (HR 849) introduced by physician Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), has passed the Ways and Means Committee and enjoys bipartisan support, with some 265 cosponsors in the House—including 43 Democrats.

Let us hope that the bill soon makes it to the president’s desk. The best time to slay a dragon is when it is still in its egg.

source-weekly std, wesley smith, steven rattner, msnbc, willie sutton, ezekiel emanuel,

Byungjin: how north Korea fools the media-how Kim Jong-un plays the American media

.–47jh.,b12-2

Since this spring, Kim’s regime has invited several media organs to visit Pyongyang. It’s no coincidence who’s been let in—North Korea is the most repressive country on the planet, and it screens visitors with military precision. The regime has been shrewd in its choice of invitees: All are representatives of what the president would call “fake news,” but what are more generally known as the legacy or establishment media. And as hobbled as these once-towering giants may be, they’re still influential: Even if the president doesn’t cotton to it, what they report matters, because it informs the opinions of elite policymakers as well as an educated, politically active segment of the public.

An early and frequent visitor has been CNN’s Will Ripley. In May, Ripley, who has steadfastly refused to answer questions from this magazine about his reporting, uncritically quoted a North Korean who claimed the well-known fact that families of defectors are sent to labor camps is “100 percent evil propaganda.” In the same interview, which CNN admits “was organized by the [North Korean] government,” another North Korean said, “Our society is one big family with leader Kim Jong Un as the father.” Scintillating stuff.

The regime was evidently pleased with what it saw: Ripley has been invited back to Pyongyang on several occasions—he’s been there 15 times in all—and was even allowed to film a one-hour documentary there. (“Ripley speaks to a resident who has witnessed many of these missile launches and says it gives him ‘great pride’ when he sees a missile in the sky,” the promotional material gushes.) Contrast that with the experience of Anna Fifield, a Washington Post correspondent and former Financial Times journalist with deep knowledge of Korea. She has reported critically from the country and even live-streamed an unauthorized video from Pyongyang on a visit there. She was denied a visa on her most recent attempt to enter North Korea.

Ripley’s reportage from North Korea has set the template for the dual messages the regime is sending through its American media emissaries. One: Life for North Koreans is good, and improving, thanks to the benevolence and wisdom of Kim Jong-un. And two: North Korea is a fearsome, nuclear-armed state, and the United States had better not mess with it. Not coincidentally, this coincides with Kim Jong-un’s Byungjin policy: simultaneous economic and military development. (His father, by contrast, was widely understood to have lavished resources on the military while the civilian economy withered.) North Korea coverage these days is Byungjin in English.

Evan Osnos of the New Yorker also brought home Byungjin. Osnos is no Ripley—he’s a terrific reporter who was long based in Beijing and has a real understanding of Asia. He visited North Korea this fall and, like the CNN correspondent, found a regime boastful of its military capabilities. “The United States is not the only country that can wage a preventive war,” one foreign ministry official told him. Message received. Osnos also told of a capital city that appears in many ways to be thriving. “On the streets of Pyongyang, there are flashes of modernity, even style. Some women can be seen wearing stilettos and short skirts. .  .  . Now and then, I saw people hunched over cell phones.” (Pyongyang, by the way, is a world apart from most of the rest of North Korea, which remains desperately poor.)

The gold standard of Byungjin journalism was demonstrated this month by New York Times columnist Nick Kristof, who has just returned from North Korea. While still in the country, Kristof posted numerous photos on Instagram attesting to North Korea’s economic progress under the Dauphin’s leadership. A water park, an amusement park ride, and a tasty-looking pizza all made the grade—this in a country still suffering from grievous food shortages.

Kristof’s subsequent column, published a few days after his return, told the other part of the North Korean story. “North Korea is galvanizing its people to expect a nuclear war with the United States. .  .  . This military mobilization is accompanied by the ubiquitous assumption that North Korea could not only survive a nuclear conflict, but also win it,” he wrote. “ ‘The situation on the Korean Peninsula is on the eve of the breakout of nuclear war,’ Choe, the Foreign Ministry official, told me. ‘We can survive’ such a war, he added, and he and other officials said that it was not the right time for talks with the U.S.”

Unfortunately, unlike Osnos and Ripley, Kristof is an opinion writer, and he came back advocating many—though not exclusively—positions that would surely please Pyongyang. He touts “talks without conditions,” for instance, a longstanding goal of the regime.

The missives of Kristof and others are fulfilling another regime goal: Byungjin is what Pyongyang wants the world to see. But is it real? Is North Korea’s military truly ferocious, or would it fold in the face of confrontation? Are North Koreans—even the few fortunate ones in Pyongyang—actually happy with Kim Jong-un’s policies of nukes and circuses, or is there widespread discontent? Alas, Byungjin reporting brings us no closer to any insight on these deeply important questions.

But judged by its own standards, North Korea’s press strategy is undoubtedly working—its message is clear and being amplified. Given that, we can probably await Pyongyang dispatches from Lawrence O’Donnell or Ruth Marcus in the coming days. Though of course, if the regime really wants to affect President Trump’s thinking, it should probably invite the cast of Fox & Friends for a Pyongyang sojourn instead.

source– weekly std, ethan epstein, cnn, will ripley, anna fifield, wash post, new yorker, evan osnos, nick kristof, nyt,

Gun control whoppers –

-k44h.,b72-

Fiction: “The [Las Vegas] crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the nra wants to make easier to get.” — Hillary Clinton, noted firearms expert, on Twitter, 10/2/17–“[A] suppressor would not have made a difference in the Las Vegas case … Clinton … provided no evidence to suggest a different outcome.” — Politifact, “No, Gun Silencers Wouldn’t Have Worsened the Las Vegas Shooting,” 10/4/17

Fiction: “While other developed peer countries also have high rates of gun ownership, they have less mass shootings [than the U.S.].” — npr, 10/7/17   Fact: Europe, which has all the gun controls that are being pushed in the aftermath of the Las Vegas carnage, has actually suffered more bloodshed from these types of attacks than the U.S. … Countries such as France may have made all semi-automatic guns illegal, but that hasn’t stopped killers … All four of the 2015 mass public shootings in France involved machine guns, including the 130 people killed in … multiple attacks including one at a concert venue … In fact, machine guns are commonly used in mass shootings in the rest of the world … [Las Vegas would] be the first … in the U.S. involving a machine gun … It is likely to rank [just] 14th in the most deadly mass public shootings in the world since 1970 [although] it is the worst ever in the United States.” — John Lott, Fox News, 10/2/17

Fiction: “It is harder to buy cough medicine than it is to buy an AK-47 or 50 of them.” — Steve Schmidt, msnbc analyst, on hbo’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” 10/6/17.  Fact:  But if you can find an AK-47 automatic (registered pre-1986), and if it’s legal in your state, it will set you back $20K to $30K or more, not to mention up to a year-long federal background check after filling out the proper atf forms with fingerprint cards and tax payment.

Fiction: “Background checks.” — Nancy Pelosi, when asked what new law “would stop something like this,” the Las Vegas shooting, cnn, 10/5/17  Fact:  Stephen Paddock passed all background checks. “Mass shootings do not occur because of a lack of background checks. In almost every high-profile case in recent years, the perpetrator had no criminal record or record of mental illness that barred the purchase of a firearm. — National Review, 10/3/17

Fiction: “More guns mean more gun deaths. Period.” — Vox, 10/2/17  Fact:  “[T]he exact opposite is true … [T]here were seven firearm-related homicides for every 100,000 Americans in 1993. By 2013 (most recent year available), the gun homicide rate had fallen by nearly 50 percent to only 3.6 homicides per 100,000 population … [as] the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013…” — American Enterprise Institute.

NUMBER OF FIREARMS VS. GUN HOMICIDES SINCE 1993—

NUMER OF GUNS-APPROX–1994-4%, 1998-18%, 2002-21%, 2006-30%, 2010-43%, 2014-57%

GUN HOMICIDES RATE–49%—-1994-8%, 1998-28%, 2002-40%, 2006-40%, 2010-50%, 2014-45%

Fiction. “How many people have to be slaughtered before gop stands up to nra?” — Rob Reiner, Hollywood’s “Meathead,” on Twitter, 10/2/17- Fact: . Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States … [T]he case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence.” — Leah Libresco, The Washington Post, 10/3/17

MASS SHOOTINGS 1976-2012

1996-20, 1981-18, 1986-15, 1991-21, 1996-19, 2001-11, 2006-20, 2012-19 (APPROX.)

Fiction. “President Trump, end this ‘American carnage.’ … It takes moral courage … to back gun-control legislation and prevent mass shootings.” — members of The Washington Post Editorial Board. Fact:  Legislation cannot prevent mass shootings. “One of the recurring traits of such attacks is that they occur in a gun-free zone … [A]ttackers do not want people to be able to shoot back.

Fiction: “[M]ass shooting after mass shooting, in city after city that is plagued by gun violence … there are 30,000 people dying every [year] on the streets of this country.” — Sen. Chris Murphy (D, Fact:  Almost 2 out of 3 gun deaths in the U.S. every year are suicides. Japan, a “gun-free utopia,” has a suicide rate 80 percent higher than the U.S. rate. Just 11,726 U.S. gun deaths are homicides, and more than 2/3 of these are drug and gang related.

Fiction: “Already this year there have been more mass shootings than days in the year.” — Sen. Chris Murphy, in The Hill, 10/2/17. Fact:  Despite the left’s hysteria, there’s no spike. Sadly, such occurrences have been notably consistent over decades. “From 1999 through 2013 [last year available] there were an average of 20 to 22 mass shootings in the U.S. annually. In an average year, four of these would be ‘mass public shootings’ … of the rest, about half were ‘familicides’ [within a family] … the other half were ‘attributable to an underlying criminal activity…’” — The Wall Street Journal, 10/8/17. Fact:  “The number of mass shootings has not increased.” — James Alan Fox, Northeastern University, usa Today, 10/2/17.

Fiction: “Legislation is the answer.” — Sen. Dianne Feinstein, on banning bump-stocks, quoted by cnn reporter Phil Mattingly on “The Situation Room,” cnn, 10/5/17. Fact:  “No law would have stopped Las Vegas shooter, Feinstein says.” — Politico. The Washington Free Beacon, 10/6/17

Fiction: “Since the Sandy Hook tragedy, more than seven children per day have died from gun violence. We can no longer be silent. #EndGunViolence.” — Rep. Jackie Speier (D, CA), on Twitter, 12/14/16. Fact: The ‘children’ in the … statistic include ‘children’ in their 20s. Most are between 16 and 24, a peak age for criminal activity, and … a heavy percentage of these deaths are suicides. Virtually all of the guns used are obtained illegally. The claims are intentional distortions.”— wnd

Fiction: “[I]t’s so crazy, there are loopholes in the law that let people avoid background checks if they buy a gun privately from another party, if they buy a gun online or at a gun show.” — Jimmy Kimmel, “comedian,” quoted in National Review, 10/2/17. Hillary Clinton has frequently claimed that 40 percent of gun purchases are made online or at gun shows, thus avoiding a background check. Fact:  For this, The Washington Post gave Hillary three Pinocchios. “Federal studies show that a measly 1 to 3 percent of all guns are purchased at gun shows … In reality, firearms purchased through federally licensed dealers are subject to all the restrictions … There is zero empirical evidence that banning those transactions would do anything to prevent gun crimes.” — Michelle Malkin, Creators Syndicate, 10/5/17

Fiction. “No one is questioning your right to have a gun … We’re not talking about taking away guns from people.” — Nancy Pelosi, cnn Town Hall, 10/4/17. Fact:  “They [Republicans] are gonna say, ‘If you give them bump-stock, it’s gonna be the slippery slope [to gun control].’ I certainly hope so.” — Nancy Pelosi, admitting the truth in her press conference the next day, in The Washington Free Beacon, 10/5/17. From Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s famous quote, “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them [your guns] all in,” to Bret Stephens’ “Repeal the Second Amendment” in The New York Times, the statist’s one true goal has always been gun control — leading to gun confiscation. They acknowledge that none of their policies stop those hell-bent on committing homicide or suicide — but that doesn’t matter. It’s the control in gun control that liberals want.

 

SOIRCE SHOWN IN THE ARTICLES.

 

 

 

 

My winning formula –

–k44H..B72

“Life is a series of battles ending in victory or defeat.” — Donald Trump

“[T]he most frightening thing about the Trump Presidency … [is] Trump’s willingness to unravel so many longstanding policies and institutions at once — from nafta to Obamacare to the global climate accord to the domestic clean power initiative to the Pacific trade deal to the Iran nuclear deal…” — Thomas L. Friedman, “The Trump Doctrine,” The New York Times, 10/17/17

The left is in an absolute panic. The edifice of Obamaism, carefully constructed over the last eight years, is crashing. President Trump is wielding his Executive pen and his phone to bring down the entire Obama legacy. Week by week, day by day, hour by hour.

Trump nixed the Paris Accords, decertified the Iran deal, kicked daca to the curb (Congress), kneecapped Obamacare, pulled the plug on unesco, launched yet another major pipeline, and — in a revolutionary act — had his hhs declare that “life begins at conception.” Vile sex trafficking rings are being smashed all across the country, jailing hundreds of perps and rescuing scores of children. The President repealed “Clean Power Plan,” Obama’s regulatory nightmare, bringing the coal industry back from the dead; he reduced illegal immigration by 70 percent; he’s ending the era of the giant sucking sound by renegotiating nafta; he’s enforcing our borders and restoring the rule of law.

So much Trumpism has been enacted in ten months it is almost impossible to list it all. Restoring our military. Defeating isis. Nominating stellar conservative judges. Defending religious liberty. Restoring due process on the college campus. On the world stage, President Trump is reordering global trade relationships and strategic alliances around an “America-First” geopolitical philosophy, while the entire political establishment is caterwauling that he’s launching economic and nuclear Armageddon.

Meanwhile, the Trump economy is rocketing; the markets’ “Trump bump” has turned into a “Trump jump.” On October 17, the Dow hit 23,000 for the first time ever, the fifth “1,000-point milestone” since Trump was elected. gdp growth in the second quarter — Trump’s first full quarter as President — soared to 3.1 percent. A number declared impossible by all the wizards of smart when Trump predicted it.

According to the bls, the number of employed Americans rose by 906,000, one of the biggest monthly increases ever. cns reports that the number of employed Americans (154,345,000) set a sixth record since January — while the 4.2 percent jobless rate is the lowest since early 2001. So get this Oct. 13 headline from Bloomberg: “Consumer Sentiment in U.S. Unexpectedly Surges to 13-Year High.” Unexpectedly!

And yet — what are you seeing in the media, from “anonymous sources”? Trump is out of his mind. He’s wandering the halls of the White House, talking to the portraits. Has no allies, no friends, no supporters, everybody thinks he’s nuts. It’s time for the 25th Amendment! But somehow he’s moving this complex, coherent international Executive agenda at a breakneck pace that we’ve never seen in our lifetimes. The left is just flailing away. After nearly a year of Trump, nothing they’ve tried has even made a dent in stopping him. He’s not giving them a moment to react and regroup and fight back. They’re on defense, all the time, which is totally new. The truth is, Trump is unpredictable, but he is focused and relentless — which is why they’re losing their minds.

Trump and his legislative agenda have been stopped cold in the Congress, and particularly in the U.S. Senate. Trump’s successes and achievements I just listed are results of Executive action. As astonishing as Trump’s policy impact has been, it has huge gaps, in health care, tax reform, welfare reform, budget, and so on. Those gaps are due to legislative inaction on the part of the Republican “leadership.” Laws written by the people’s representatives and then signed by the President is how the American government is designed to work. And it’s not working, thanks to the Republican establishment. If for just three months House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would work with Trump to advance his agenda, they would own everything politically for the rest of their careers.

This three-month roadmap is the winning formula — and that’s what’s so frustrating to me. Imagine where we’d be by now if the Republicans had simply worked with Trump for 90 days! When The Washington Post ran the headline last month, “Trump Sides with Democrats on Fiscal Issues, Throwing Republican Plans into Chaos” — my reaction was, “What Republican plans? The Democrats haven’t thrown Republican plans into chaos. The Republicans have!”

Why vote Republican? What do we do with these victories? I’m serious. If this is what you get when you vote Republican, what’s the point? The Republicans won the White House, the Republicans maintained control of the House and built on their margin, and they won the Senate — and they did it all on the back of Donald Trump’s campaign. Where is the evidence of it? The Republican Party is technically in power in Washington, but they’re not really in power.

Imagine, folks, if the daily visual out of Washington were McConnell and Ryan and Trump working together, unified on Trump’s agenda. If it looked like there were mutual respect and eagerness to get these things done, that would unify Trump voters in a way Democrats can’t compete with. Republicans control the House and the Senate. It was that what Democrats stand for was rejected.

That arrogance — which treats people as if they’re incapable of making their own decisions — was rejected. Liberals like Obama and the Clintons and the entire Washington establishment, who insist they are equipped to take the reins of your life from you, was rejected. Those who want to force you to live the way they demand because they are superior were rejected. A revolt against everything connected to the ruling class, wherever they are.

They have lost in the court of public opinion. They do not represent the majority of the thinking in this country. They don’t persuade people to join them. And because they’re failing, they are becoming ever more unhinged. They are finally, in their frustration, exposing who they have always been.

All they can do is nitpick and trash and slime — in predictable ways. They are political clichés! Ripe for defeat in the arena of ideas. In the aftermath of Las Vegas, Democrats mocked prayer. I’m telling you, they are sitting ducks if Republicans would just unify around the America-First principles that brought them the White House. It’s a gold mine waiting to be mined, with America’s future waiting to be won.

source-listed in the article

 

 

 

 

 

Special kind of stupid–

k44H.,B72

The Left’s Long Game: Destroy the NFL– nfl Players’ Union Teamed Up with Soros to Fund Leftist Advocacy Groups.” — The Washington Times, 10/4/17

 “Shock Poll: nfl Now Least Liked Sport, Core Fans Down 31%.” — The Washington Examiner, 10/7/17

I love the nfl, so it’s painful to see it now participating in its own destruction. Players are being duped into believing they’re engaging in a noble cause to promote justice and solidarity and diversity, but sadly, they are being used. The purpose behind the anthem protests roiling the nfl is to harm the business. This entire collapse is being orchestrated by the left. The nfl has long been a target — because it has long stood for what liberals hate: proud display of strength and talent, unapologetic masculinity, raw competition, rugged individualism, excellence, victory, love of country, enjoyment of life. It’s a uniquely American game, reflecting the unique American culture, and all the pageantry showcases the best of the best.

The nfl’s original sin, as far as the left is concerned, was choosing sides in the 1960s culture wars. Starting in 1966, the league sent nfl players on goodwill tours to Vietnam to visit American soldiers. In 1968, then-Commissioner Pete Rozelle introduced Air Force flyovers during the national anthem, according to The Washington Post, and “mandated that players stand upright during the anthem, with their helmets tucked into their arms.” But liberal loathing was cemented on November 15, 1969, the massive anti-war March on Washington, which President Richard Nixon claimed not to even notice. “It was a good day to watch a football game,” Nixon said. The left was livid. Antiwar activist Dave Meggyesy, ex-Cardinal linebacker, sneered, “It’s no accident that the most repressive regime in our history is ruled by a football freak.” It was no accident that Meggyesy had been benched after refusing to honor the anthem. As Politico revealed, Meggyesy attacked professional football as “middle America’s theater, Nixon’s theater … laid out every Sunday.” He complained to The New York Times that “the Nixon regime was lock-stepping with the Lombardi ethic.” In that era, the antiwar left’s hatred of Nixon transmogrified into a full-blown liberal hatred of the nfl, and continues to this day.

Throughout the years, the drive-by media and other leftists have used multiple coordinated attacks — the Super Bowl domestic violence hoax, global warming, homophobia, demonization of Christians and Republicans — to try to take down this great American institution. All attempts to separate the league from the fans have been futile — until now:

  1. “Super Bowl Sunday is the ultimate in macho America … Several women’s crisis centers report that for victims of domestic violence, it’s one of the worst days of the year. DR. LENORE WALKER
  2. “[B]attered-women’s advocates say they are alarmed by a correlation they’re starting to see between the aggressions unleashed by sports viewing — especially of pro football … — and violence against women. CHICAG TRIBUNE
  3. “If Super Bowl tradition holds, more women than usual will be battered today in their homes by the men in their lives; • nbc airs public service announcement before the 1993 Super Bowl to remind men that domestic violence is a crime. Crashes and burns when The Washington Post and others debunk, 1/31/93-NYT.

1994-2004. nfl Commissioner Paul Tagliabue creates the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury [mtbi] committee in 1994. The “day of dread” gambit having failed, the anti-nfl forces begin exploiting legitimate neurological concerns, turning the focus to concussions.

  1. “[A]ll you football junkies readying for your fantasy drafts should do one real-world thing in the next couple of weeks: take two hours to see this movie [‘An Inconvenient Truth’] … something you need to see. You don’t want to wake up in 15 years with the earth permanently damaged and huge portions of the earth’s surface underwater, forever.” Peter King, Sports Illustrated writer, article about the Miami Dolphins, NewsBusters, 7/25/06
  2. “The National Football League refused to run a recruitment ad for the U.S. Border Patrol in last week’s Super Bowl program, saying it was ‘controversial’ because it mentioned duties such as fighting terrorism and stopping drugs and illegal aliens at the border. ‘The ad that the department submitted was specific to Border Patrol, and it mentioned terrorism. We were not comfortable with that, “Scientists told the nfl that Super Bowl xli would put one million pounds of carbon dioxide into the air — not counting air travel to Miami — so the league planted 3,000 trees around Florida in an attempt to pull at least that much of the greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere.” — Sports Illustrated, 3/12/07WASH TIMES 2/17/17, GREG AIELLO

2009-“nfl supports Breast Cancer Awareness with screening campaign … games throughout October to feature pink cleats, gloves, end zone elements … ‘The Crucial Catch [breast screening] initiative reminds us all how important it is to take care of the women in our lives,’ said [Cardinals WR Larry] Fitzgerald.” — nfl announcement, 9/30/09

“I believe you are an $8 billion organization that has failed in your responsibility to the players. We all know it’s a dangerous sport.” — Rep. Maxine Waters (D, CA) to Roger Goodell, House Judiciary Committee, in The New York Times, 10/28/09 .“Dogfighting is banned — maybe football should be, too: There are disturbing similarities between the two spectacles … Dogfighting, widely accepted in the 19th century, is objectionable because it necessarily ends in the ‘suffering and destruction’ of the canine participants, solely ‘for the entertainment of an audience.’ Given the horrific brain damage facing nfl players, is football really so different?” — “Ban the nfl?” in The Week, 10/30/09

  1. “At a surface level, the Tebow [pro-life] ad likely will stand out as a wholesome, inspirational contrast to the beer-guzzling, sex-selling excess that characterizes Super Bowl commercials. But … if you want to set a progressive’s teeth on edge, just mention Focus on the Family … the embodiment of the staunch anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality politics that characterize the Christian right.” — Tom Krattenmaker, USA Today, 2/1/10.
  2. “Does Football Have a Future? The nfl and the Concussion Crisis.” — The New Yorker, 1/31/11
  3. “espn Speculates About the ‘Death of Football.’” — nbc Sports, 2/12/12 .“What Would the End of Football Look Like? An Economic Perspective on cte and the Concussion Crisis.” — Grantland, 2/13/12
  4. “The Impending Death of Pro Football.” — The Atlantic, 1/22/13
  5. “Is It Immoral to Watch the Super Bowl?” — The New York Times Magazine, on “the cruelty of the game,” because the U.S. “civilian leisure class … has created, for its own entertainment, a caste of warriors too big and strong and fast to play a child’s game without grievously injuring one another,” 1/24/14. “Professional football, perhaps more than any other male team sport, is based on misogyny and homophobia.” — “Michael Sam and the nfl’s Virulent Homophobia,” at The Huffington Post, 9/2/14. “It is unthinkable that hometown athletes would so publicly perpetuate a narrative that has been disproven over and over again.” — St. Louis Police Officers Association [slpoa], after five Rams players entered nfl game with “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gestures, calling the nfl “remarkably hypocritical” for allowing the protest, msnbc, 12/1/14. “We respect and understand the concerns of all individuals who have expressed views on this tragic situation.” — nfl statement after slpoa complaint, msnbc, 12/1/14.

2016.- The Arm-in-Arm decal [supporting fallen Dallas policemen] the Cowboys unveiled to open training camp won’t be on their helmets when the club opens its preseason schedule … The Cowboys … were told by [nfl] officials they can’t wear the decal during any preseason or regular-season games.” — Sports Day, 8/10/16

  • “People are dying in vain because this country isn’t holding their end of the bargain up, as far as giving freedom and justice, liberty to everybody.” — Colin Kaepernick,- SB Nation, 8/28/16. “It’s just ridiculous that the same league that prohibits the Dallas [Cowboys] football club from honoring the slain officers in their community with their uniforms stands silent when Kaepernick is dishonoring police officers with what he’s wearing on the field.” — Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, referring to police-as-pigs socks Kaepernick wore at practice, espn, 9/1/16
  • “Tennessee Titans linebacker Avery Williamson planned to wear commemorative cleats on Sunday during the Titans’ season opener to honor the 15-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks … an nfl representative called Williamson … and informed him that he would be fined for a uniform violation if he wore the cleats.” — cbs Sports, 9/11/16
  1. “Memorabilia from Colin Kaepernick’s protest of the national anthem last year will head to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History as part of its Black Lives Matter exhibit.” — Fox News, 8/21/17
  • “Death of nfl Inevitable as Middle Class Abandons the Game.” — The Chicago Tribune, 9/5/17 • “Trump: nfl Owners Should Fire Players Who Protest the National Anthem.” — cnn, 9/23/17 • “[E]veryone should know, including the President, this is what real locker room talk is.” — Joe Lockhart, nfl spokesman (and former Clinton press secretary), slamming President Trump, usa Today, 9/25/17
  • “When he [Trump] says — he is really telling the owners — like the owners are the plantation owners and the guys playing in the [nfl], they’re on the plantation.” — Spike Lee, on cnn, Breitbart, 9/27/17 • “Exclusive poll: 62% of nfl fans plan to watch less football … we asked specifically if people felt it was wrong for players to kneel during the anthem. Seventy-seven percent said yes.” — Yahoo Finance, 9/29/17
  • “30 Percent of nfl Fans Are Watching Less — and Most Blame Anthem Protests.” — The New York Post, 10/5/17 “Roger Goodell Tells nfl Teams They Should Stand for Anthem: Protest Eroding ‘Unifying Power of Game.’” — TownHall, 10/10/17.

“espn Host Compares Dallas Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones to a Slave Owner.” — The Washington Times, 10/10/17 The nfl Is Now One of the Most Divisive Brands in the U.S.” — The New York Times, 10/11/17 • “More bad news for the nfl: an analyst for Credit Suisse yesterday downgraded his price and earnings per share targets for 21st Century Fox in part due to nfl ratings that are coming in below market expectations.” — Forbes, 10/13/17

  • “Cowboys tv Ratings in Dallas-Fort Worth Are Slipping.” — The Dallas Morning News, on 19 percent drop in viewership, 10/14/17 “Report: Colin Kaepernick Files Grievance Against nfl Owners for Collusion.” — Sports Illustrated, 10/15/17• “nfl Players Continue National Anthem Protests.” — cbs News, 10/15/17• “Report: nfl to Bankroll ‘Social Activism Boot Camp’ for Pro Athletes.” — The Daily Caller, 10/16/17
  • “cbs Earnings to Disappoint Due to Weak nfl Ratings, Credit Suisse Says.” — cnbc, 10/16/17 • “Colin Kaepernick’s collusion case against nfl owners will argue that his continued unemployment is at least partially the fault of President Donald Trump.” — Sports Illustrated,10/16/17 “Backlash: Week 6 of the nfl Reveals Several Nearly Empty Stadiums as Fans Continue to Leave the League.” — Breitbart, 10/16/17 • “nfl Owners Won’t Penalize Players for Kneeling During Anthem.” — The New York Times,10/17/17

This is exactly what it looks like when liberalism infects and corrupts an institution. Will the nfl be the first to break the spell of liberalism — and return to its former glory as the quintessential American pastime? The league’s only hope is to start fighting the left, instead of joining it. Meanwhile, I’m playing a lot more golf on Sundays.

SOURCES STATED IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE