The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featruring:
The Real Lessons of Middlebury College
by Thomas Sowell
.
. The CBO: The Government's Favorite Psychic
On Monday, the Congressional Budget Office released its report on the projected impact of the House Republicans' American Health Care Act (AHCA). The CBO estimated the law would result in a reduction of budget deficits by some $337 billion over a 10-year period, as well as up to 24 million more uninsured Americans by 2026. House Speaker Paul Ryan predicted that the report would estimate an increased number of uninsured. He said Sunday, "The one thing I'm certain will happen is CBO will say, 'Well, gosh. Not as many people will get coverage.' You know why? Because this isn't a government mandate. This is not the government that makes you buy what we say you should buy, and therefore the government thinks you're all going to buy it." It's always easier to insure more people by forcing them to buy insurance.
Barack liar-nObama's goal with the Affordable Care Act was not affordable health care, but socialized health care — the first step toward a single-payer system similar to those found in many European nations. Republicans are in the unenviable position of solving a difficult two-part problem. The first task is repealing and dismantling liar-nObamaCare, while the second is to find an effective solution to skyrocketing health care costs.
The split within the GOP falls over determining which problem is the greater issue. For conservatives like Rand Paul, the primary issue is one of freedom and a principled fight against encroaching socialism. For more moderate Republicans like Paul Ryan, dealing with rising health care costs takes precedence. Both sides agree that liar-nObamaCare is a disaster.
Predictably, the Leftmedia has taken the CBO report and used it as another brush by which to paint its favorite strawman caricature of heartless Republicans. Never mind that the average premiums under ObamaCare this year will increase by 25% with continued increases in subsequent years, whereas the projections for the Republicans' plan show an initial premium increase of between 15% and 20% followed by a steady decline over the next decade.
And one more point of emphasis: Remember those past CBO projections for liar-nObamaCare enrollment and cost numbers? Prior to the Affordable Care Act's passage, the CBO predicted that the law would cut the deficit by upwards of $1 trillion in 20 years. Now, it's admitted that liar-nObamaCare will instead only add to the deficit. And those 30 million more Americans insured by 2017? The actual number is 14 million. So don't take CBO projections as gospel truth. Its estimates have been way off the mark with liar-nObamaCare. Why should its latest projections on the AHCA now be trusted? ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Rogue Judiciary Deep State Swamp
Must Be Drained Immediately
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Lou Dobbs has a few thoughts “on the deep state and its obvious and dangerous commitment to obstruct and subvert the Trump Presidency.”... He explains that “The deep state typically defined as a government within a government, most often members of the bureaucracy, especially the intelligence community, all branches of government. And now it’s clear there exists an urgent need to drain the deep, deep judicial swamp in this country.” “Two federal court judges,” note Dobbs, “have now ruled against President Trump’s revised travel ban executive order. A federal judge in Hawaii, appointed by former ‘president’ liar-nObama and one of his classmates at Harvard Law to boot, issued the stay against the President’s executive order yesterday. President Trump blasted the flawed legal reasoning last night in his rally in Nashville,” calling it an unprecedented judicial overreach that makes America look weak. Dobbs notes how “It certainly makes the federal judge, Derrick Watson, the classmate of ‘mr’ liar-nObama’s at Harvard Law, appointed by ‘mr’ liar-nObama in 2012 look very weak and overtly political. Maryland judge Theodore Chuang, also nominated by ‘president’ liar-nObama in 2013. And in an interesting coincidence, ‘mr’ liar-nObama paid a surprise visit to Honolulu, where judge Watson resides Monday, preceding the ruling. Just coincidence, I assure you, I think.”... http://rickwells.us/dobbs-rogue-judiciary-deep-state-swamp-must-drained-immediately/
Virginia Officials Arrested For
Violating Voter Protection Laws
by Phillip Stucky
by Phillip Stucky
.
Email Connects FBI in Plot to
Spy on Trump, ‘We Paid for Info from…’
by Keith Jacobs
{patriotpowerednews.com} ~ In the most recent WikiLeaks dump, there was an email sent from Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.) to FBI Director James Comey. The MSM has so far side stepped this but it is not something you want to ignore... Check it out. By Virginia Kruta The March 6 email seems to lend credibility to claims that some officials within the liar-nObama administration were complicit in soliciting information about then-candidate Trump through means that were dubious, at best. From the email: On February 28, 2017, the Washington Post reported that the FBI reached an agreement a few weeks before the Presidential election to pay the author of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging a conspiracy between President Trump and the Russians, Christopher Steele, to continue investigating Mr. Trump. The article claimed that the FBI was aware Mr. Steele was creating these memos as part of work for an opposition research firm connected to liar-Hillary Clinton. The idea that the FBI and associates of the liar-Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for President in the run-up to the election raises further questions about the FBI’s independence from politics, as well as the liar-nObama administration’s use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends. It is additionally troubling that the FBI reportedly agreed to such an arrangement given that, in January of 2017, then-Director Clapper issued a statement stating that “the IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.” According to the Washington Post, the FBI’s arrangement with Mr. Steele fell through when the media published his dossier and revealed his identity. http://patriotpowerednews.com/alert-email-connects-fbi-in-plot-to-spy-on-trump-we-paid-for-info-from/
.College Students Slam Betsy DeVos,
Then Agree With Her Views
by Trey Sanchez
{truthrevolt.org} ~ This video is hilarious! But it’s also an insightful look into the void of the uneducated minds filling our nation’s campuses... Hypeline talked with a few students who had plenty to say about President Trump’s new Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. They chided her for being “grossly unqualified” for the task and described her as someone who will “destroy the education system of America.” One even thought she was “elected” and couldn’t understand why, proving they know absolutely nothing about her. But when they were asked to weigh in on the same views on education supported by DeVos— vouchers and school choice — those same haters suddenly LOVED those ideas… until they found out they were DeVos’s and tried to backstep their own hypocrisy. http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/watch-college-students-slam-betsy-devos-then-agree-her-views
.
VAULT 7 – Real Leaker and Why Now
by thesleuthjournal.com
by thesleuthjournal.com
{thesleuthjournal.com} ~ Why now? Why is this the perfect time for the real leaker to expose Deep State spying to the general public? As America realizes NSA wiretapping is out of control and reels at the thought of illegal CIA surveillance... are we distracted from the shocking fact that liar-nObama wiretapped Trump Tower to help liar-Hillary win the 2016 election? Should we be happy or suspicious that Wikileaks (Julian Assange) supposedly leaked these Vault 7 documents exposing Deep State spying on every American citizen in violation of the 4th Amendment? http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/vault-7-real-leaker-now/
..
The Real Lessons of Middlebury College
by Thomas Sowell
{townhall.com} ~ Many people seem shocked at the recent savagery of a mob of students at Middlebury College, who rioted to prevent Charles Murray from addressing a student group who had invited him to speak. They also inflicted injuries requiring hospitalization on a woman from the faculty who was with him.
Where have all these shocked people been all these years? What happened at Middlebury College has been happening for decades, all across the country, from Berkeley to Harvard. Moreover, even critics of the Middlebury College rioters betray some of the same irresponsible mindset as that of the young rioters.
The moral dry rot in academia — and beyond — goes far deeper than student storm troopers at one college.
Frank Bruni of the New York Times, for example, while criticizing the rioters, lent credence to the claim that Charles Murray was "a white nationalist." Similar — and worse — things have been said, in supposedly reputable publications, by people who could not cite one statement from any of Dr. Murray's books that bears any resemblance to their smears.
Academia, however, is ground zero in the war against people whose ideas go against the current political correctness. The virtual monopoly of the political left, on campuses across the country, allows all sorts of things to be attributed to people the left disagrees with, irrespective of whether those people have ever said anything resembling what they are alleged to have said.
The professors don't usually riot against people whose ideas they disagree with, because they can just dismiss those ideas, with some characterization that there is no one on hand to challenge.
Professor William Julius Wilson of Harvard, for example, said of Justice Clarence Thomas, "He'll say he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. I say I was in the right place at the right time."
Just where did Justice Thomas say that he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps? The central theme of his autobiography, titled "My Grandfather's Son," credits the wisdom of the grandfather who raised him as what saved him.
Nuns who taught him in school were brought to Washington, at his expense, to be present to see him sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme Court, to see that their dedicated efforts on his behalf had not been in vain.
But has anyone ever asked Professor Wilson on just what he based his claim about Justice Thomas? The central tragedy of academia today is that you don't have to have anything on which to base dismissals of people and ideas you disagree with.
This attitude is not unique to William Julius Wilson or to Harvard. On the west coast, Professor Lanny Ebenstein of the University of California at Santa Barbara has included economists Stephen Moore and Walter Williams, as well as television host John Stossel, among those "committed to the welfare of the top few."
Professor Ebenstein has every right to disagree with these individuals on economic or other issues. But that is very different from attributing to them a commitment to "the welfare of the top few."
It so happens that I have read books by all three, without finding any preoccupation with the welfare of the affluent or the rich. I have known Walter Williams for more than 40 years. When we both lived on the east coast, we and our wives often met socially.
In all that time, neither in public nor in private did I ever hear Walter Williams express the slightest concern for the welfare of the affluent or the rich. Innumerable times I heard him focus his concern on the well-being of people like himself, from a poverty background. That concern was also expressed in deeds as well as words.
But who is going to ask Professor Ebenstein to cite the basis for his claim?
Why should we expect students to welcome debate about differences of opinion, when so many of their professors seem to think cheap shot dismissals are all you need? Lacking their professors' verbal dexterity or aura of authority, students use cruder methods of dismissing things they disagree with.
So long as academia talks demographic "diversity" and practices groupthink when it comes to ideas, we have little reason to expect better of student mobs that riot with impunity.
Where have all these shocked people been all these years? What happened at Middlebury College has been happening for decades, all across the country, from Berkeley to Harvard. Moreover, even critics of the Middlebury College rioters betray some of the same irresponsible mindset as that of the young rioters.
The moral dry rot in academia — and beyond — goes far deeper than student storm troopers at one college.
Frank Bruni of the New York Times, for example, while criticizing the rioters, lent credence to the claim that Charles Murray was "a white nationalist." Similar — and worse — things have been said, in supposedly reputable publications, by people who could not cite one statement from any of Dr. Murray's books that bears any resemblance to their smears.
Academia, however, is ground zero in the war against people whose ideas go against the current political correctness. The virtual monopoly of the political left, on campuses across the country, allows all sorts of things to be attributed to people the left disagrees with, irrespective of whether those people have ever said anything resembling what they are alleged to have said.
The professors don't usually riot against people whose ideas they disagree with, because they can just dismiss those ideas, with some characterization that there is no one on hand to challenge.
Professor William Julius Wilson of Harvard, for example, said of Justice Clarence Thomas, "He'll say he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. I say I was in the right place at the right time."
Just where did Justice Thomas say that he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps? The central theme of his autobiography, titled "My Grandfather's Son," credits the wisdom of the grandfather who raised him as what saved him.
Nuns who taught him in school were brought to Washington, at his expense, to be present to see him sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme Court, to see that their dedicated efforts on his behalf had not been in vain.
But has anyone ever asked Professor Wilson on just what he based his claim about Justice Thomas? The central tragedy of academia today is that you don't have to have anything on which to base dismissals of people and ideas you disagree with.
This attitude is not unique to William Julius Wilson or to Harvard. On the west coast, Professor Lanny Ebenstein of the University of California at Santa Barbara has included economists Stephen Moore and Walter Williams, as well as television host John Stossel, among those "committed to the welfare of the top few."
Professor Ebenstein has every right to disagree with these individuals on economic or other issues. But that is very different from attributing to them a commitment to "the welfare of the top few."
It so happens that I have read books by all three, without finding any preoccupation with the welfare of the affluent or the rich. I have known Walter Williams for more than 40 years. When we both lived on the east coast, we and our wives often met socially.
In all that time, neither in public nor in private did I ever hear Walter Williams express the slightest concern for the welfare of the affluent or the rich. Innumerable times I heard him focus his concern on the well-being of people like himself, from a poverty background. That concern was also expressed in deeds as well as words.
But who is going to ask Professor Ebenstein to cite the basis for his claim?
Why should we expect students to welcome debate about differences of opinion, when so many of their professors seem to think cheap shot dismissals are all you need? Lacking their professors' verbal dexterity or aura of authority, students use cruder methods of dismissing things they disagree with.
So long as academia talks demographic "diversity" and practices groupthink when it comes to ideas, we have little reason to expect better of student mobs that riot with impunity.
Comments