|
Title: The Patriot Post Digest 3-8-2017 Post by: nChrist on March 08, 2017, 06:19:44 PM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 3-8-2017 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ Mid-Day Digest Mar. 8, 2017 IN TODAY’S EDITION What’s the real message of a “Day Without A Woman”? Reverse the gender of the two presidential candidates and people still don’t like Clinton. The GOP’s ObamaCare replacement gets a pretty cold reception. Daily Features: Top Headlines, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts. THE FOUNDATION “Equal laws protecting equal rights; the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country.” —James Madison (1820) TOP RIGHT HOOKS Women’s Strike Hurts Women1 Today seems like a great day for a “Day Without A Woman,” a strike organized to protest the supposed gender oppression of women in America. Women are encouraged to take the day off from work, refrain from shopping and wear red. With the same group of organizers who held the Women’s March2 earlier this year, the strike today is aimed at highlighting the same old collage of leftist complaints bound up in their favorite term, “inequality.” Women in America are victims of a sinister patriarchal society, which is robbing them of equal rights … or so we’re told. Absent any substantive evidence supporting this claim, the strike is aimed at convincing Americans of its reality. But what is the reality? Are American women actually suffering under some insidiously oppressive patriarchy? Well, the facts would say otherwise. In 2014, the American Community Survey found3 that 37.5% of women ages 25 to 34 had a bachelor’s degree compared to only 29% of men in the same age range. And what of the supposed pay gap4 between men’s and women’s salaries? It evaporates when accounting for variables such as child bearing and rearing. In fact, according to a Pew Research Center survey in 2013, 72% of women believe they have the same opportunities in the workplace as men, while 75% believe they are paid just as much as their male counterparts. It sounds like the women’s strike needs to convince just as many women of the supposed inequity in pay as it does men. But the truth is, this strike has more to do with protesting Donald Trump and conservative values (sometimes two very different things) than in promoting women. Ironically, today’s protest will only prove to make the day harder for many women. Take, for example, any poorer single moms living in Alexandria, Virginia. So many teachers took the day off that the district closed public schools for the day. Working single moms whose children now have no school will lose a day of pay as they stay at home watching their children. Unless they hire someone to do it for them. Brilliant. Maybe the biggest irony of the protest is that it infers women are merely helpless victims who need men to save them from their oppressed status. There are no laws preventing women from having access to the same opportunities as men. Equal opportunity exists in this nation more than any other. But the goal of socialists and leftists is not equal opportunity but equal outcome, and anywhere they find disparity they see an excuse for greater government involvement and control. This is the real message being sent by this strike. It’s not about women, it’s about promoting leftist policies. Gender-Swapping the Presidential Debates5 Hillary Clinton failed to break the “glass ceiling” in November, and as the leftist women protesting today would have you believe, it’s partly because she’s a woman. Well, two New York professors decided to test this theory by re-enacting the presidential debates while switching the genders of the competitors — Clinton was played by a man called “Jonathan Gordon,” while Donald Trump was represented by a woman named “Brenda King.” Real actors portrayed the two, doing their best to copy inflection, body language and behavior, all while quoting actual debate dialogue verbatim. Naturally, Salvatore explains6, “We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption — that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate.” They were quite surprised that the exact opposite happened. Salvatore reflected, “The majority of my extended family voted for Trump. In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting. I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke.” Most of the audience felt the same way, gravitating to “King” and away from “Gordon.” In fact, Salvatore said, “We heard a lot of ‘now I understand how this happened’ — meaning how Trump won the election.” So maybe the whole election wasn’t some misogynist rebellion after all. Maybe there really was something to the perception that Clinton just isn’t likable. Who knew?7 Top Headlines8 Unlike ObamaCare, you don’t have to pass the GOP replacement plan to see what’s in it. (CNS News9) Senate rescinds Obama’s blacklist rule — Trump plans to sign the bill overturning rule that gave unions “unprecedented new leverage.” (The Washington Free Beacon10) Trump taps Bush administration lawyer and Cruz friend as Solicitor General. (Reuters11) If men went on strike, what would America look like? (Washington Examiner12) Judge refuses to block Dakota Access pipeline with project days from completion. (The Washington Times13) Looking for racism in America? Look left, on campus. (Washington Examiner14) New evidence on school-choice successes in Wisconsin. (National Review15) Hate crime hoax: Michigan snowflake scratched own face with “safe space” safety pin. (PJ Media16) In the Age of Trump, unlikely customers — blacks and homosexuals — exercise Second Amendment rights. (National Review17) The Pyongyang-Beijing Axis. U.S. and South Korean forces begin deploying new missile defenses. (The Wall Street Journal18.) Policy: The GOP’s forced march on health care begins. (RealClearHealth19) Policy: Entitlement reform key to fixing America’s fiscal future. (E2120) For more, visit Patriot Headline Report21. FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS ObamaCare Replacement Gets Cold Reception22 By Louis DeBroux Republicans spent six years passing legislation that repealed ObamaCare in total or in part, including a full repeal last year that passed the House and the Senate, only to be vetoed by Barack Obama. Now in control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, Republicans have released the broad framework of an ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill23. The result has been, shall we say … underwhelming, as evidenced by the hostile reception it has received from the House Freedom Caucus24 and conservative advocacy groups25. For years, Republicans have railed against ObamaCare and its pro-socialized medicine, anti-free market provisions, promising to replace ObamaCare at the first opportunity with a patient-centered bill that would take advantage of free-market dynamics to lower costs and expand choice. That is not what this bill does. To be sure, there are some good provisions of the GOP bill. As outlined26 in an Investor’s Business daily editorial, “It repeals ObamaCare’s multitude of largely hidden but no less destructive taxes on health insurance plans, medical devices, flexible spending accounts and so on. It gets rid of ObamaCare’s individual mandate and the job-killing employer mandate. It expands the amount of money that can be contributed to Health Savings Accounts, the one health reform that has actually worked to lower costs. It’s age-based, refundable tax credit for individual insurance is an improvement over ObamaCare’s unpredictable, Rube Goldberg subsidy scheme.” “But the biggest problem with the GOP plan,” IBD points out, “is that it preserves the beating heart of ObamaCare — the ‘guaranteed issue’ mandate. Under ObamaCare, insurance companies can’t deny coverage in the individual market to anyone who is sick, or charge them more. Premiums can only vary based on age.” To be fair, we must acknowledge27 that as a practical matter, ObamaCare can’t be repealed and replaced in a single act. Certain provisions can be repealed through the procedure called reconciliation, which prevents a filibuster and requires only a simple majority to pass, but only provisions related to budgetary matters can be included in a bill under reconciliation. That means ObamaCare is like legislative kudzu; you can chop off the vine that is visible aboveground, but in order to truly eradicate it you have to dig up the roots, which have grown far and wide below the surface. Title: The Patriot Post Digest 3-8-2017 Post by: nChrist on March 08, 2017, 06:20:51 PM ________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 3-8-2017 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription (http://patriotpost.us/subscription/new) ________________________________________ So while we should not be overly concerned that it may take some time to eradicate every vestige of ObamaCare, we should be very concerned over whether the Republican Congress has the political willpower to do what needs to be done in the face of a unified Democrat Party and Leftmedia that will flood the airwaves with sob stories of every American who benefited from ObamaCare and opposes its repeal. Republicans need to be bold in their defense of free-market reforms, and they need to trot out, one after another after another, people who were hurt by ObamaCare but who will benefit from a true free-market health care system. Upon announcement of the bill, President Donald Trump tweeted, “Our wonderful new Healthcare Bill is now out for review and negotiation. ObamaCare is a complete and total disaster — is imploding fast!” The most important phrase in that tweet is “out for review and negotiation.” This framework can’t be the final product. It is essentially ObamaCare Lite. As Philip Klein28 at the Washington Examiner pointed out, this bill, if kept in its current form, would be a signal that liberalism has “won the central philosophical argument, and Republicans are reduced to fighting over the mechanics.” That’s because, he says, “It is not a free market plan. It still rests on the premise that the federal government should play a significant role in subsidizing and regulating insurance markets in an attempt to ensure broad coverage.” The fact is that there are roughly 11 million Americans who have come to depend on ObamaCare, and it would be cruel to take away ObamaCare and throw them into the proverbial street. A transition period and temporary subsidies will be needed to make sure they don’t fall through the cracks. At the same time, Republicans must be relentless in their pursuit of a free-market system that uses market dynamics to reduce costs and expand access. You can’t get there by having the federal government being the biggest spender in the health care space, nor can you get there by continuing a policy that allows people to go without insurance until they get sick before buying a policy without penalty (ObamaCare) or a small, one-time penalty (GOP-care). At some point we have to tell Americans that they are responsible for their own health and health care, and the federal nanny state will no longer save them if they act irresponsibly. Republicans have a rare opportunity. ObamaCare was passed exclusively by Democrats on a party-line vote, and it has been an unmitigated disaster by any and every measure. But hey, we passed it “to find out what’s in it,” as Nancy Pelosi then admonished. Now she demands the opposite. But we digress… Republicans were able to use its failure as a sledge hammer to bludgeon Democrats in the midterms, making historic gains in 2010 and 2014. But if, after seven years of promising to repeal and replace ObamaCare, they replace the carpet and the drapes and slap a new coat of paint on it, while leaving the crumbling, dilapidated structure in place, then they will own it, and the American people will not forgive them. But a word of caution: One of the strategic errors that conservative Republicans consistently fall into is that we eat our own with an all-or-nothing approach where we usually end up with nothing. Or as Congressman Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) has put it, “We throw three Hail Marys and punt.” Conservatives will have to be patient and realize that repealing and replacing ObamaCare will not be a quick process, and that we can’t eat our own as we go down this road. At the same time, elected Republicans need to understand that the American people have given them more elected seats at all levels of government than they’ve had in nearly a century, and that we expect to be rewarded with bold colors, no pale pastels29. ObamaCare Lite is not bold. MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST The Erosion of Liberty, Quote by Quote30 — Wonder what to make of all this wiretapping stuff? Here are some clues. Dutifulness Needed in NOAA Budget Cuts31 — Separating the “needed” from the “wanted.” The Closing of the College Mind32 — Colleges and universities are fast becoming intolerant of free speech. Combatting the Transgender Agenda33 — Sometimes adversity brings divergent groups together. BEST OF RIGHT OPINION Michelle Malkin: A Day Without American Tech Workers34 L. Brent Bozell & Tim Graham: The Media’s Anonymous-Sources Hypocrisy35 Ben Shapiro: The 5 Stages of a Trump Scandal36 For more, visit Right Opinion37. OPINION IN BRIEF L. Brent Bozell & Tim Graham: “White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders exposed a notable bit of hypocrisy on ABC’s ‘This Week.’ As the liberal media boiled over President Trump accusing former President Obama of wiretapping him, ABC host Martha Raddatz spat at Sanders about a conservative blog’s reporting, saying: ‘And Heat Street, they have two sources with links to the counterintelligence community. That’s it. Anonymous sources.’ Sanders shot back: ‘I love how anonymous sources don’t count when it’s something that’s positive in this administration and against the former one. You guys use anonymous sources every single day. … But now that there are new anonymous sources, it doesn’t matter.’ Bravo! We couldn’t have said it better ourselves. We don’t see evidence yet that Obama ordered a wiretap on Trump or his aides, but we know this: Arrogant Old Media outlets think their sources are automatically impeccable, eternally credible and nonpartisan. … It’s beyond ironic that the press that champions transparency also advocates relying on completely opaque sources on a daily basis.” SHORT CUTS Friendly fire: “Remember that time when Susan Sarandon said she wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton and all hell broke loose in liberal land? … Here’s the thing: If liberals weren’t too busy tweeting abuse at Sarandon and writing think pieces about her white privilege, they might just be able to see that she makes some salient points about the American political system, the media and the Trump presidency. … We’ll never know if Sanders could have beaten Trump, but we do know that Clinton could not.” —Salon’s Danielle Ryan Non Compos Mentis, part I: “The American people and members have a right to know the full impact of this [health care] legislation before any vote in Committee or before the whole House.” —Nancy “We Have to Pass It to Find Out What’s In It” Pelosi Non Compos Mentis, part II: “Word of advice to the White House: stick to reality. Health care is a big deal and we can’t afford any #alternativefacts. The truth? ACA resulted from one of the most transparent drafting processes in recent memory.” —Nancy Pelosi Belly laugh of the week: “There is a real danger, I believe, that the Justice Department could become politicized.” —Dianne Feinstein (Yes, let’s never forget the exemplary precedents set forth by Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.) And you’re still wrong: “Trump’s Muslim Ban is still a Muslim Ban.” —Rep. Keith Ellison Alpha Jackass: “The driving force behind this Muslim ban are the Islamophobes and the white supremacists employed by the Trump administration.” —CAIR national executive director Nihad Awad And last… “We’re not in the ‘Mad Men’ era anymore, and it’s time to stop pretending we are. Instead of throwing a temper tantrum, er, striking, women who want to change the status quo further likely would be more effective — not to mention more considerate of women and men who need services like schools during the week — by focusing on specific problems at specific companies. Such women also could encourage other women to become their own best advocates.” —Katrina Trinko Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis Managing Editor Nate Jackson Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families. |