Congress should slow the slide down ObamaCare’s slippery slope

Darn you, Charles Krauthammer. Why do you have to write what I was going to write just before I write and say it so much better than I ever would?

Take the lede on today’s column in the local newspaper, which is actually his Friday column in the Washington Post:

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but for governments it’s not that easy. Once something is given — say, health insurance coverage to 20 million Americans — you take it away at your peril. This is true for any government benefit, but especially for health care. There’s a reason not one Western democracy with some system of national health care has ever abolished it.

I’ve already protested that RyanCare contains too many of the market manipulating machinations of ObamaCare, lamented the efforts to make sure no one ever has any handout taken away.

But I’m getting hoarse from screaming at the TV and printed page over the reporting that millions will “lose” health insurance cover, when in reality many of those millions will be gladly “throwing” away that pathetic and nearly useless coverage due to sky high deductibles. (Never mind that the CBO estimates of the uninsured under RyanCare are probably just as inflated as its estimate of the newly insured under ObamaCare.) And just what were those able-bodied millions added to Medicaid doing before the Democrats charity?

But, as the astute Krauthammer notes:

There is no free lunch. GOP hard-liners must accept that Americans have become accustomed to some new health-care benefits, just as moderates have to brace themselves for stories about the inevitable losers in any reform. That’s the political price for fulfilling the seven-year promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Retrenching is better than leaving ObamaCare in place and letting it evolve in the single payer system Obama and Harry Reid wanted to begin with.

Reid, asked on public radio a couple of years ago if the country will eventually work beyond private health insurance, Reid enthusiastically replied, “Yes. Absolutely, yes.”

He was later quoted by the Las Vegas Sun insert in a rare local article: “What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever. We had a real good run at the public option … don’t think we didn’t have a tremendous number of people who wanted a single-payer system,” but he could not get enough votes back then.

As Krauthammer points out, once that happens there will be no going back: “There’s a reason not one Western democracy with some system of national health care has ever abolished it.”

Nate Beeler, The Washington Examiner

Anybody but Trump

Trump speaks at the South Point. (R-J photo)

Tonight’s the night. Nevada Republicans caucus to pick their choice for a presidential candidate.

According to the latest CNN poll, Donald Trump is the choice of 45 percent of the state’s likely GOP caucusgoers, trailed by Marco Rubio at 19 percent and Ted Cruz at 17 percent, with Ben Carson and John Kasich in single digits.

Trump’s support appears to be up from the 36 percent in a CNN poll in October — at which time I asked: “What the hell are you thinking?” In an editorial this past week, I pointed out that Donald Trump has never been and is not a Republican. His core political philosophy is: Whatever is good for Donald Trump — everyone else be damned.

In fact, Trump is nothing more than a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton. He jumped into the race shortly after a phone call from Bill Clinton in which he reportedly told Trump, according to the Washington Post, “that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.”

A WaPo source described Clinton as “upbeat and encouraging during the conversation, which occurred as Trump was speaking out about GOP politics and his prescriptions for the nation.” Trump has given money to the Clintons’ campaigns and their foundation.

Cruz speaks in Summerlin (R-J photo)

The lede photo and story in today’s Las Vegas newspaper was of and about mainly Trump. Of course, the quotes from Trump’s South Point rally were strictly name calling, boastful promises and vague one-liners without substance or specifics — such as saying of ISIS, “We’re going to knock the hell (out) of them.”

On the Nevada section cover of the paper, columnist John L. Smith — under the hed, “Trump putting on huge act as conservative” — ranted about “America’s fascist Fabian,” who entertained the crowd with his “self-aggrandizing and increasingly popular Gorgeous George routine.”

Smith slammed ridiculous Trump with sharp ridicule that ended with a lament:

The list of those Trump has gone out of his way to offend is extensive (I apologize if I’ve left you out), but along his campaign’s Borscht Belt circuit he has denigrated women’s looks, former POW U.S. Sen. John McCain, Mexicans, a disabled New York Times reporter, the Chinese, the French, a billion or so followers of Islam and Pope Francis.

Just telling it like it is, his followers shout. He’s not politically correct! Yeah, Chauvinism! Go, hate speech!

Trump isn’t a candidate. He’s a comb-over Mussolini.

And it seems to be working.

Then he concluded with this pun on Trump’s gimme cap slogan: “For now, our fascist Fabian is making America grate again.”

Over on the editorial page, the editorial, for the third time I think, made a strong endorsement for Rubio, whom Smith had just called “inexperienced.”

The editorial said Rubio “has strong conservative credentials, but he also has the ideas and charisma to bring independents and moderates under the GOP tent on Nov. 8,” even though he was a member of the Gang of Eight and has been more willing to compromise than Texas’ former solicitor general and U.S. Supreme Court clerk Cruz, who is unwavering in conservative principle and won Iowa, though he opposed corn ethanol subsidies. Trump said those subsidizes put people to work.

But, anybody but Trump.

Even the paper’s Bernie Sanders-supporting socialist columnist called out Trump, even though Trump is more like Sanders than an actual Republican. He called Trump “a television entertainer who’s managed to tap into a deep vein of voter frustration over Washington, D.C. gridlock and what Trump claims is a politically correct culture that silences real debate. (Translated, of course, that means the God-given freedom to insult anybody you want, from immigrants to the handicapped to the media to women to politicians and Washington lobbyists.) Seriously, when you have the pope calling out your schtick, you’ve really got to question your life choices.”

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer has said of Trump:

Cruz may be anti-establishment but he’s a principled conservative, while Trump has no coherent political philosophy, no core beliefs, at all. Trump offers barstool eruptions and whatever contradictory “idea” pops into his head at the time, such as “humane” mass deportation, followed by mass amnesty when the immigrants are returned to the United States.

That’s the reason his harebrained ideas — barring all Muslims from entering the country, a 45% tariff on Chinese goods, government-provided universal health care through “a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people” (why didn’t I think of that?) — have received such relatively little scrutiny. No one takes them seriously. His actual platform is all persona — the wonders that will emanate from his own self-proclaimed strength, toughness, brilliance, money, his very yugeness.

The National Review devoted an entire edition to conservatives bashing Trump.

The New Times today has a piece pointing out that Trump is a political zero in New York, noting: “The major banks, for their part, say they are leery of lending to him after having lost millions of dollars on past deals. Lawyers and contractors he has hired in the past say he is slow to pay his bills, and often shortchanges them. Even the few Wall Street executives who say privately that he is a friend are loath to speak publicly about him.”

Lest we forget: Trump has called himself a liberal and said the country is better off when Democrats are in the White House.

He recently advocated a universal single-payer health care system similar to Canada’s and what Sanders proposes.

Trump has proposed huge tariffs that would set off a trade war and kill jobs.

In the Reno newspaper he wrote a piece calling federal ownership of federal land an impediment to economic development, but when asked at a Las Vegas gun show about federal land being relinquished to the states, he said, “I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. … I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold.”

On education, after once calling Common Core a disaster, he then said Common Core is here to stay, but now says it has to go.

Trump  calls for deporting everyone residing here illegally but then letting the decent and law-abiding ones back in. We get stuck with the bill coming and going.

“I think eminent domain is fine,” he has said, specifically referring to the Kelo court decision that let communities grab private property from one person to give to a company that might generate more tax revenue. He tried to use eminent domain to grab a woman’s home so he could build limousine parking for one of his casinos.

He supported Obama’s bank bailouts and ruinous and futile stimulus spending.

Since earlier calling for longer waiting periods and tougher background checks before one might purchase a gun, he now claims to be a staunch defender of the Second Amendment.

The Tax Foundation calculates that Trump’s tax proposal would increase the federal government’s deficit by $10 trillion.

Anybody but Trump.

Rubio at the Silverton today. (R-J photo)

 

Krauthammer sums up the incoherent barstool eruptions of Trump

You can probably wait and read it Sunday in the Las Vegas newspaper, but why wait?

Charles Krauthammer’s column in today’s Investor’s Business Daily offers his take on the three-way race for the GOP coming out of the Iowa caucus.

Though the theme of the column is bemoaning the media’s obsession with whether the various candidates are establishment or anti-establishment, his best lines describe the clueless meanderings of Donald Trump:

(Ted) Cruz may be anti-establishment but he’s a principled conservative, while Trump has no coherent political philosophy, no core beliefs, at all. Trump offers barstool eruptions and whatever contradictory “idea” pops into his head at the time, such as “humane” mass deportation, followed by mass amnesty when the immigrants are returned to the United States.

That’s the reason his harebrained ideas — barring all Muslims from entering the country, a 45% tariff on Chinese goods, government-provided universal health care through “a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people” (why didn’t I think of that?) — have received such relatively little scrutiny. No one takes them seriously. His actual platform is all persona — the wonders that will emanate from his own self-proclaimed strength, toughness, brilliance, money, his very yugeness.

I have no idea what yugeness is either but an online search turns up a number of references to the term describing Trump or his crowds of glazed-eyed followers.

Krauthammer concludes that, despite the “establishment” wrangling and mangling, Republicans are picking conservatism over Trump’s brand of populism by 2 to 1 — when you add Marco Rubio and Cruz’s vote tally of 51 percent and compare that to Trump’s 24 percent — which he says bodes well for the GOP’s chances of survival as the party of Reagan

Ben Carson, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz at a recent debate. (Polaris/Newscom photo via IBD)

Bully Trump is whining about being picked on

Trump smirks before he pouts. (Reuters photo)

Donald Trump is a bully, who can dish it out but whines and whimpers and simpers when someone slaps his face for being crude, rude and a sexist pig.

After Megan Kelly asked Trump about calling women he did not like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals,” Trump denied it. The New York Daily News compiled a list of the women who were on the receiving end of Trump insults.

Then after the debate, Trump spewed bile on his Twitter account. On CNN he called Kelly’s questions “ridiculous” and “off-base” and said, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes … Blood coming out of her wherever.” He later tried to say he meant her nose when he said wherever.

Trump twitted about Kelly and Frank Luntz, whose post-debate panel found Trump supporters dumping him:

— “The biggest loser in the debate was @megynkelly. You can’t out trump Donald Trump. You will lose!”

— “Fox viewers give low marks to bimbo @MegynKelly will consider other programs!”

— “@FrankLuntz is a low class slob who came to my office looking for consulting work and I had zero interest. Now he picks anti-Trump panels!”

— “@FrankLuntz, your so-called “focus groups” are a total joke. Don’t come to my office looking for business again. You are a clown!”

He Twitted more than 30 times between roughly 2:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m, pouting about how unfair everyone was to him.

Carly Fiorina went on CNN and said of Trump, “I have said for some time that no one who claims to represent our party should ever be judgmental in tone, vitriolic or angry. I just think it’s inappropriate to call people names.”

She Twitted: “Mr. Trump: There. Is. No. Excuse.”

Charles Krauthammer, who Trump said after the debate should be fired, said on Fox News, “This is a guy who is running as the tough guy. The foundation of his campaign is that our negotiators, our president, our administration is stupid. They’re weak. They get kicked over in negotiations. … And now he says that he was treated not nicely by three Fox News anchors. It doesn’t quite fit. It is extremely upset I think.”

According to CBS, Trump has on occasion backed off from some of his more outrageous jibes, after the damage was done. In April, he retweeted, then deleted, “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?”

 

Iran nuke deal is near total capitulation

Obama tries to explain the Iran deal. (AP photo)

Obama’s deal with Iran not only allows the mullahs to immediately start spending $150 billion on conventional weapons to foment terror and unrest throughout the region and the world, but it hardly dampens their ability to develop nuclear weapons and even requires us to help them in some ways.

The deal requires:

Co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems …

Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.

Instead of hitting their program with cyberattacks, we are supposed to help them defend against such attacks.

As Charles Krauthammer points out Obama is taking the deal to the U.N. immediately, which could make opposition in Congress irrelevant.

“Whatever Congress ultimately does, it won’t matter because the legal underpinning for the entire international sanctions regime against Iran will have been dismantled at the Security Council,” Krauthammer writes. “Ten years of painstakingly constructed international sanctions will vanish overnight, irretrievably.”

Kevin McCullough, like some other pundit we know and respect, described the historic nature of this ill-begotten deal:

What only few know: According to how the agreement is interpreted, Iran may be 16-24 months from having a nuclear payload.

Not since the Munich pact when Great Britain’s Neville Chamberlain gave away the nation of Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler has such a monumental waste of time and energy gone into intense and necessarily serious global negotiations — only to come away with the world in far greater danger than before the talks commenced.

The failure in this case so epic that Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” ineptitude will be second place on the list of historic gaffes behind Obama’s “we kept them from getting the bomb.”

You can’t make a deal with a regime that has never kept its word on anything.

 

Obama still in denial over the presence of radical Islam

Notice the sign on the door of the recruiting office? (Reuters photo via WSJ)

Notice the sign on the door of the recruiting office? (Reuters photo via WSJ)

Obama issued a statement Thursday afternoon about the shooting deaths of four Marines in Tennessee.

He said he had been briefed about the shootings and said, “We don’t know yet all the details. We know that what appears to be a lone gunman carried out these attacks. We’ve identified a name. And at this point, a full investigation is taking place. The FBI will be in the lead, working closely with local law enforcement.”

The name of the “lone gunman” was Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, a 24-year-old who spent about seven months in Jordan this past year. But Obama would not say the name nor broach any hint that the motive was Muslim extremism.

The shootings took place at a military recruiting center and a Naval Reserve Center, where all the Marines were unarmed, just as in Fort Hood six years ago. There have been eight attacks on military facilities in those six years.

The Wall Street Journal noted that officials are now trying to determine if Abdulazeez linked up with militants during the trip. Though the FBI tracks suspected supporters of the terror, sources told WSJ that this guy was not on their radar.

Also on Thursday, Obama extended “warmest wishes to Muslims in the United States and around the world celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr. As Muslims mark the end of the month, they are reminded that Ramadan …”

In a speech in February Obama downplayed the threat of radical Muslims and claimed with a straight face: “Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding. Generations of Muslim immigrants came here and went to work as farmers and merchants and factory workers, helped to lay railroads and build up America.”

What is woven into the fabric of our founding is the Marines battling the Barbary pirates on the shores of Tripoli.

As Charles Krauthammer points out, Obama always downplays the threat of radical Islam. It is like a phobia with him.

 

White House orchestrated Benghazi propaganda plot prior to 2012 election, press yawns

Email telling Susan Rice what to say on television the next day.

Email telling Susan Rice what to say on television the next day.

With the Obama administration it is all about politics all the time.

Whether it is delaying aspects of ObamaCare or a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until after the 2014 election or lying to the American public about the murder of four Americans in Benghazi prior to the 2012 election, the White House spins like a Dervish and then denies it and tries to cover it up. Isn’t that what got Nixon in trouble? The cover-up?

The White House has repeatedly denied it had anything to do with the Susan Rice televised whitewash that laid blame on an Internet video for the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, but an email obtained by Judicial Watch shows a top White House official told Rice to say Benghazi was “not a broader failure of policy.”

In fact, the White House tried to lie about the lie by not releasing the email when requested. As Charles Krauthammer notes“The fact that it was redacted when the documents were asked for, and only revealed by a court order is telling you this is a classic cover up of a cover up. And that is a serious offense.”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, “Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good. And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.”

Among other documents obtained by Judicial Watch was a Sept. 12, 2012, email to Rice noting that a State Department spokesman explicitly stated that the attack on the consulate had been well planned. Not a spontaneous reaction to some Internet video.

“If you like your plan, you keep your plan,” was lie of the year. Perhaps this could be the lie of the decade.

The story broke near noon Tuesday. The Washington Post has a short story on this matter online. I could find no story on this topic in the Las Vegas newspaper, The Associated Press or The New York Times.

Krauthammer predicted Tuesday, “The mainstream media are going to say, ‘oh it’s so complicated’ and they’re not going to look into this, and without it, it’s going to be quite a struggle. … I think the Republicans have something here that really ought to be looked at, I just don’t know if there’s going to be any interest in the mainstream media.”