nChrist
|
 |
« on: March 08, 2017, 06:19:44 PM » |
|
________________________________________ The Patriot Post Digest 3-8-2017 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription ________________________________________
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.
|