The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
The danger of declaring health care a 'right'
by Rita Dunaway
 For the 100th Time, It Wasn't Racism 
By Paul Albaugh: It's been three months since Donald Trump was inaugurated, and many Democrats and Leftmedia political analysts are still looking for reasons for why he actually won. How could America's electorate choose Donald Trump, a man with no political experience, over liar-Hillary Clinton, a woman — a woman! — who'd been around the levers of power her entire adult life?
          According to a Washington Post "Monkey Cage" blog, written by Ohio State Professor Thomas Wood, the biggest motivator for Trump voters was, you guessed it, racism. Seriously, this was Wood's conclusion after conducting "research" on the Annual National Election Study (ANES).
          Wood's analysis took three popular narratives or motivators to determine people's reasons to vote for Trump and compared them with previous elections. The three motivators were being low income, desiring authoritarianism, and racism. To test these motivators against the ANES data, Wood's used white voters as his sample population and on the issue of racism he used a "symbolic racism scale."
          Without belaboring the details, the result of Wood's study supposedly reveals that racial attitudes made a bigger difference in electing Trump than authoritarianism or being low income.
          National Review's Ian Tuttle highlights three flaws with Wood's analysis: (1) a symbolic racism scale that is not "airtight," (2) the failure to mention that there was a greater shift in Democrat voters than Republican ones, and (3) an extremely narrow conclusion.
          Put another way, this "analysis" from the Washington Post is a steaming pile of garbage.
          Consider that in 2008 the American electorate put the first (half) black president in office and then re-elected him again in 2012. For eight years, we had a black president and now all of a sudden because Trump defeated liar-Clinton it was because of racism? Wood's analysis and the eye-catching headline are not only flawed, but downright ridiculous.
          What Wood's and many other Leftmedia talking heads have completely dismissed is that Americans overall did not want more of the same policies that we experienced under eight years of Barack liar-nObama. Americans were not happy with liar-nObamaCare or with liar-nObama's immigration policies, and they were very much concerned about the direction of the Supreme Court and an activist judiciary in general.
          Further, Americans weren't happy with the U.S. military being weakened for the previous eight years, we were sick of the excessive regulations from the EPA and other bureaucracies, and we had experienced a socialist agenda that ran up the nation's debt. These reasons barely scratch the surface for why Trump won the election.
          Americans knew who liar-Hillary Clinton was and that we would be getting more of the same — or worse.
          Let's look at Wood's analysis another way. If liar-Hillary Clinton had won, would it have been because of racism?
          After all, it was liar-Clinton who used the race card repeatedly during her campaign in order to make sure blacks didn't leave the Democrat plantation. According to Democrats, blacks can only think a certain way without being traitors to their race. That's racist.
          liar-Clinton's effort to smear Trump as a racist clearly didn't work. And neither did the policies she wanted to enact or continue. Here are some examples: liar-Hillary's policies would have pushed more blacks into welfare programs and increased the amount of people in urban poverty plantations. liar-Clinton was also a huge advocate of Planned Parenthood, which sells a vastly disproportionate number of abortions to black women and which was founded by the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who wanted to use Planned Parenthood to eradicate black babies.
          Recall that Democrat Lyndon Johnson boasted following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "I'll have those n—ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years." Yet we hardly ever hear any leftists condemning his remarks, or the attitude about blacks reflected by Democrats from Johnson to liar-Clinton.
          The Washington Post and Professor Woods should be ashamed of themselves for publishing such mendacious drivel. But being the shameless "progressives" they are, they'll pat themselves on the back for their incredible depth of insight while smugly continuing to think they're better than the rest of us. 
~The Patriot Post
Communism Next For Left Shifting
Democrats – Almost There Now
by Rick Wells
{} ~ Lou  Dobbs has a few thoughts on a “demoralized Democrat Party in crisis, the left yet again forced to recognize that “Resist Trump” is something of a lousy, loser’s strategy... A headline in Politico today succinctly described what passes for introspection on the part of the left, saying, ‘Democrats being  to wonder: When do we win?’ Dems last week failed to capture the Kansas House seat left vacant by now CIA Director Mike Pompeo.” “The Democrats also face uphill battles,” says Dobbs, “in special elections in Montana and South Carolina, they’re not expected to win either, those states Trump won by double digits. In 2018 Democrats need to net 24 seats to regain the majority in the House, uphill work. Democrats unseated only four of the 15 freshman Republican representatives they targeted in 2016.” Dobbs observes, “Dem obstructionism is proving to be a destructive strategy in the Senate as well. New polling shows seven Democrat Senators up for reelection next year all with approval ratings under fifty percent.”...
Conspiracy of the Day:
Chaffetz Blackmailed by Russia!
by Sarah Lee
{} ~ Despite our very own Neil Stevens’ highly rational and reasonable suggestions about why House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz is leaving his post (possibly eyeing another, potentially retiring Utah Senator’s seat for example…)... the liberal left knows it’s much more diabolical: Russia. Of course. National Journal Politics Editor Josh Kraushaar shared their musings on Twitter this morning: The tweet eventually links to a piece at the Palmer Report alleging a source has information that, “the FBI has learned that Russia has ‘kompromat’ blackmail material on Chaffetz and has been using it to keep him in line with regard to Trump’s Russia scandal.” Well that’s huge news. Why isn’t it being reported in every major newspaper and from behind every cable news desk in the country? Because the “source” with this bombshell accusation is none other than “conservative” conspiracy theorist and one-time respected journalist Louise Mensch. Don’t know Mensch? Well she’s most known for being a once-respected journalist who turned into a “conservative” embraced by the left because anything and everything having to do with President Donald Trump’s administration — or really the GOP in particular — is somehow tainted by Russia’s back room scheming and meddling in the last election. Don’t believe me? Here’s her take on Georgia’s special election outcome yesterday:...
Cancer patient stopped at Gaza-Israel
crossing with explosive material
by Anna Ahronheim
{} ~ Israeli authorities on Wednesday morning intercepted material used to manufacture explosive devices hidden inside spools of medical material at the Erez Crossing, the Shin Bet announced in a statement... According to the statement, the material was located during the security check at the crossing in the luggage of two sisters who are residents of the Gaza Strip. The two women had been approved to enter Israel for the purpose of receiving medical treatment for cancer, which one of the two sisters suffers from. An initial Shin Bet investigation indicated that the explosives were sent by Hamas and that the group was planning to carry out terror attacks in Israel in the near future, the statement read, adding that the material was destroyed by a sapper of the Southern District police force...
Palestinians: Hunger Strike or Smokescreen?

The hunger strike declared by jailed Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti (left) is
aimed at Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (right)
by Bassam Tawil
{} ~ Palestinians have an old habit of settling internal scores by diverting their grievances and violence towards Israel. This practice is clear to those who have been monitoring developments in the Palestinian arena for the past decades... It is an integral part of the Palestinian strategy to undermine, isolate, delegitimize and destroy Israel. Those less familiar with Palestinian culture and tactics, however, have difficulty understanding the Palestinian mindset. Officials in Washington, London, Paris and other Western capitals rarely meet the ordinary Palestinian, the "man on the street" who represents the authentic voice of the Palestinians. Instead, these officials meet Palestinian politicians and academics from Ramallah -- the "experts" who are actually accomplished con artists. Such Palestinians grasp the Western mindset very well, and use their understanding to twist Western officials any which way they want...
Judicial Watch Sues for Records about Funding and Political Activities of George Soros'
Open Society Foundation

{} ~ Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)... for records and communications relating to the funding and political activities of the Open Society Foundation - Macedonia. The Macedonia organization, part of George Soros' Open Society Foundations, received nearly $5 million from USAID from 2012 to 2016. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (No. 1:17-cv-00729)). The suit was filed after both the U.S. Department of State and USAID failed to respond to a February 16, 2017, FOIA request seeking:...
The danger of declaring health care a 'right'
by Rita Dunaway
{} ~ As the nation dithers over the Affordable Care Act and its ill-fated replacement proposals, the question of whether people have a “right” to health care begs consideration. We know that Sen. Bernie Sanders believes the answer is “yes,” and that House Speaker Paul Ryan believes the answer is “no.”

To determine who is correct, we first must understand what a “right” is.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as “a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another.” So any discussion of rights must begin with the acknowledgment that they correlate with duties on the part of others. They are “inherent in one person and incident upon another.” My right to own property correlates with your duty to avoid trespassing upon it. My right to free speech triggers the government’s duty to refrain from restricting it.

Generally speaking, the more basic or fundamental the right, the less onerous the corresponding duty upon others. Thus we observe that the fundamental rights bestowed upon every human being by the Creator – natural rights – are in the nature of liberties, imposing upon others only the duty of non-interference. My freedom to worship, for instance, requires nothing of others but that they allow me to exercise it.

This is one reason we know that health care is not a natural right. Health care is not a form of liberty, but rather a service that requires the labor of another person. I have no natural right to demand that service from those who can provide it, because they are free people with their own natural rights.

Of course, natural rights are not the only rights we enjoy in a civilized society. Other rights, often referred to as “civil rights,” are vested in us by our Constitution. These include the right to a criminal trial by jury and the right to equal protection of the law. These civil rights impose duties upon the government that we collectively agree to sustain and support in the interest of maintaining a just and humane society. Obviously, our Constitution does not provide anyone with a right to health care.

Now when sufficient portions of society agree, we can create or recognize additional rights by statute, or even by constitutional amendment. (Note that under our Constitution, courts were never empowered to create or recognize new rights, but rather to apply those that are codified). But the creation of new “rights” must never be undertaken lightly, because, again, all rights correspond with duties. We must always consider who will bear those duties – and whether it is just to impose them.

This is the context in which we find the current debate over a “right” to health care. The question is not so much whether there is a right to health care, but rather whether we should create one. Careful consideration of the colossal duty that such a right would impose upon others should give us great pause in designating health care as a “right.”

It is one thing for the government to collect a modest tax from all citizens to fund legitimate government functions. At the state or local level, these may include providing a safety net for those who are genuinely unable to work to provide for their own basic needs. But to classify health care as a “right” is to imply that none of us needs to earn it, that it is something we are all owed.

This is problematic because government doesn’t generate its own money – and doctors are not slaves. So who should bear the duty of funding health care for able-bodied adults? We must recognize that any scheme of redistributing the fruit of some citizens’ labor to others involves an erosion of the fundamental right of productive citizens to enjoy the fruits of their own labor – a far more basic, natural right than the “right” to health care.

And here is one final aspect of this issue to consider. Every day, people receive lots of things without having a right to them. Some of us earn goods and services, but others receive them as gifts. This also means that every day, many Americans give of their own bounty not because they have a legal duty to do so, but because they are generous and kind.

In our desire to see basic human needs met, we must not ignore the proper role of simple charity – and its merits over the legal coercion that corresponds with the problematic conferral of “rights” to complex services like health care.

Views: 9


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy: ‘The Real Second Amendment Isn’t Absolute

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) tweeted Saturday there is a “real” Second Amendment and an “imaginary” one and he believes the real one is “not absolute.”

Murphy, “I support the real 2nd Amendment, not the imaginary 2nd Amendment. And the real 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute.”

The statement was a precursor to his call for banning “assault rifles” in the wake of the Santa Fe High School shooting, even though “assault rifles” were not used in the attack.

Murphy said the “real 2nd Amendment…allows Congress to wake up to reality and ban these assault rifles that are designed for one purpose only – to kill as many people as fast as possible.”

Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) said the Santa Fe High School attackers used a .38 revolver and a shotgun to carry out his heinous acts. Therefore, a ban on “assault rifles” would have done nothing to prevent the attack from occurring or the tragic loss of life from taking place.

It should be noted that Saturday was not the first time Sen. Murphy called the essence of the Second Amendment into question. On August 6, 2013, Breitbart News reported that Murphy told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that “The Second Amendment is not an absolute right, not a God-given right. It has always had conditions upon it like the First Amendment has.”

Murphy did not grapple with the words, “Shall not be infringed.”


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service