Saturday, November 23, 2024
Facebook Instagram RSS Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 10

Weinsteingate: Hollywood Knew And Encouraged Behavior For Their Own Personal Wealth

By
Gustavo
-
0

The scandal engulfing disgraced movie producer Harvey Weinstein rages on. New allegations of sexual misconduct against actresses continue to emerge daily. Weinstein reportedly planned to flee to an undisclosed location in Europe, ostensibly for sex addiction rehab. He reportedly has also retained a criminal defense attorney.

Meanwhile, the larger question of Weinsteingate is becoming: “What did Hollywood know, and when did they know it?” If Weinstein’s depravity was an open secret, why was everyone silent?

Many A-List actresses have spoken out, some claiming ignorance, some not. Perhaps the most realistic responses have come from Jessica Chastain. She divulged that she was warned about Weinstein from the beginning, but defended her silence on the grounds that all she heard was rumors and that, in any event, it would be the victims’ stories to tell.

Chastain also complained that the media was not asking Hollywood’s leading men why they never spoke out about Weinstein. Unsurprisingly, some of the actors in Weinstein’s orbit are being questioned now. The answers are not Oscar-worthy.

Clooney, Damon, and Affleck

Like Glenn Close, George Clooney perhaps gets points for acknowledging that he heard rumors. The rest of Clooney’s comments, however, really went no further than to claim shock at the financial settlements paid to some of Weinstein’s victims.

Clooney is one of the industry’s smarter actors, otherwise downplayed the scandal he was supposedly deploring. He told The Daily Beast, “A good bunch of people that I know would say, ‘Yeah, Harvey’s a dog’ or ‘Harvey’s chasing girls,’ but again, this is a very different kind of thing. This is harassment on a very high level” (emphasis added).

Clooney added, “in some ways, a lecherous guy with money picking up younger girls is unfortunately not a news story in our society.” He quickly skipped to the “argument that everyone is complicit in it. I suppose the argument would be that it’s not just about Hollywood, but about all of us—that every time you see someone using their power and influence to take advantage of someone without power and influence and you don’t speak up, you’re complicit.”

Of course, that requires seeing it, and Clooney was adamant that he never witnessed Weinstein harass or assault women. The “not seeing” is a common theme in actors’ responses to this scandal.

Matt Damon was asked about a report that he and Russell Crowe were asked to telephone Sharon Waxman to derail a Weinstein expose in 2004. The story he tells allows for the possibility that he was an innocent dupe. Anyone who has seen “Team America: World Police” may be inclined to that interpretation. Damon’s denial has curious aspects. He told Deadline, “I was never conscripted to do anything. We vouch for each other, all the time.” Does show business require people, especially powerful people, to vouch for each other constantly? Perhaps. If so, maybe Hollywood has much deeper problems to address.

Beyond this 2004 incident, Damon added: “We know this stuff goes on in the world. I did five or six movies with Harvey. I never saw this. I think a lot of actors have come out and said, everybody, is saying we all knew. That’s not true. This type of predation happens behind closed doors, and out of public view. If there was ever an event that I was at and Harvey was doing this kind of thing and I didn’t see it, then I am so deeply sorry, because I would have stopped it.”

Damon “never saw this,” while leaving open the possibility it happened around him and he did not see it. He then explained why this will generally be true: these incidents usually occur without witnesses. He carefully avoided trying to clear this low bar. If Clooney heard things, how likely is it that Damon did not? If Clooney had seen Weinstein acting like a “dog,” how likely is it that Damon did not?

Ben Affleck, whose career, like Damon’s, was largely launched by the Weinstein-coproduced “Good Will Hunting,” settled for issuing a written statement remarkable for its vagueness. It is devoid of any sense of what Affleck heard or saw during his association with Weinstein.

There may be reasons for this. Rose McGowan has accused Affleck of prior knowledge of Weinstein’s alleged sexual harassment and assaults. Affleck also issued his own terse apology for groping Hilarie Burton during a 2003 appearance on MTV’s “Total Request Live,” which was basically captured on video:

In A Repeating Show Of Desperation, Boy Scouts Opens Cub Scouts To, Girls?

By
Gustavo
-
0

The Boy Scouts of America announced a historic change on Wednesday: they will now encourage little girls to learn life lessons from little boys and men by admitting girls to Cub Scouts. Because, feminism, of course!

“The [Boy Scout of America’s] record of producing leaders with high character and integrity is amazing,” said Randall Stephenson, BSA’s national board chairman, in a statement. “I’ve seen nothing that develops leadership skills and discipline like this organization. It is time to make these outstanding leadership development programs available to girls.”

Modern feminism preaches female independence—that girls and women don’t need men. This decision on behalf of the Boy Scouts is the exact opposite. Yet the move came at the urging of the National Organization for Women, a liberal “women’s rights” nonprofit. The group has a terrible case of confused identity (a common trend for these types of crusaders) for a couple of reasons.

It took NOW five days to issue a statement condemning Harvey Weinstein, a major donor to liberal causes, for reported heinous acts against women. But their activism to force girls into spaces traditionally designated for boys and men is far more dangerous. The irony or I may dare to say stupidity, is that in doing so, they undermine institutions that for decades have been instrumental to young girls.

Destroying the Girl Scouts

Days after the Boy Scouts of America welcomed transgender scouts in February, the National Organization for Women demanded the Boy Scouts end their “discriminatory policies” against girls.

“Women can now hold all combat roles in the military, and women have broken many glass ceilings at the top levels of government, business, academia, and entertainment. It’s long past due that girls have equal opportunities in Scouting,” NOW president Terry O’Neill said in a statement. On behalf of New York teenager Sydney Ireland, NOW was one of the lead advocates for this “inclusive” new policy.

“Girls should just have the opportunity to be a member of any organization they want regardless of gender,” Ireland said in a statement.

So now, starting in 2018, “families can choose to sign up their sons and daughters for Cub Scouts. Existing packs may choose to establish a new girl pack, establish a pack that consists of girl dens and boy dens or remains an all-boy pack,” the Boy Scouts say.

It’s a remarkable change for a 100-year-old institution, which—despite now claiming to welcome girls—is not changing their name to reflect this newfound acceptance. In a way, the Boy Scouts bringing in girls is the ultimate show of chauvinism. It implies Girl Scouts isn’t good enough for girls, and that they’re better off learning from men.

Sweet, Sweet Irony

The Girl Scouts of the USA didn’t mince words when addressing what they believe is the Boy Scouts’ questionable motives.

“This is a direct response to boost their declining membership,” Lisa Margosian, chief customer officer for Girl Scouts, told BuzzFeed News. “We’re disappointed in the way the BSA handled this. We’ve enjoyed a strong relationship and partnership with them over the years and we’re disappointed that the BSA didn’t discuss this with us to say, ‘we’re having trouble with our membership.”

It’s no secret that membership for the Boy Scouts is suffering. The fact that they have a history of bending to left-wing activists probably isn’t helping. So when allowing transgender individuals to join their ranks didn’t fix their declining membership dilemma (shocker!), the Boy Scouts decided to go after their next set of victims: little girls. And NOW provided the perfect cover.

When organizations like NOW encourage young girls and women to act like victims, it should come as no surprise when they’re treated as such. Those poor, oppressed Girl Scouts not only needed saving—they needed a male alternative. Victimization culture seeps into the Boy Scouts as well. It’s changing them from developing lifelong character and leadership skills to lifelong political correctness skills.

‘Equality’ Means Girls and Boys Suffer

We may not know exactly how this will play out, but if the country’s reaction to the NFL national anthem controversy is any sign, it’s likely the Boy Scouts will face some sort of boycott. In the long-term, however, the Boy Scouts need not worry. Although it will never be the same, their institution will be just fine. They doubled their membership base and declared themselves on the right side of history. They stand on a moral and membership high ground.

Meanwhile, the Girl Scouts—an institution that was founded on the idea that every G.I.R.L. (go-getter, innovator, risk-taker, leader) can change the world—will continue to “discriminate” against men, as they dwindle in membership and power. In a sad twist of fate, they’re who will suffer at the hands of this “equality.”

Because the confused liberal thought leaders behind this change are now pushing young girls out of the Girl Scouts to be Tagalongs in a world of men, the institution, as it currently stands, could cease to exist. But alas, until neo-feminists and social justice warriors can accept that boys can be boys and girls can be girls, this is how the cookie will crumble. It’s an irony that, sadly, is anything but sweet.

University President, Shuts Down GOP Lawmaker’s Speech For Black Lives Matter

By
Gustavo
-
0

The president of Texas Southern University invited Black Lives Matter protesters to disrupt an event with a Republican lawmaker.

It’s no surprise that progressive groups like Black Lives Matter want to shut down free speech on college campuses—but they shouldn’t be getting help from school officials to do it.

In at least one recent case, they did. This week, the president of Texas Southern University intervened to shut down a Federalist Society event featuring Republican state Rep. Briscoe Cain at the TSU law school. Dozens of Black Lives Matter protesters crashed the event, shouting, “When a racist comes to town, shut it down!” and other slogans meant to smear Cain, a member of the conservative Texas House Freedom Caucus. The protesters were eventually cleared from the room, but no sooner had they left than TSU President Austin Lane arrived on the scene, invited the protesters back in, and had Cain escorted from campus by police under the pretext that it was for his own safety.

The school’s official (and unconvincing) excuse was that the event was unsanctioned because the Federalist Society isn’t a registered student organization and “proper scheduling procedures were not followed.” Yet James Douglas, the interim dean of the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at TSU, told The Dallas Morning News that the law school’s branch of the Federalist Society, which had invited Cain to speak, went through all the proper procedures. “We have a process here in the law school, and they went through our process,” Douglas said. “The speaker had a First Amendment right to be heard by the students that invited him.”

What’s more, emails published by The Blaze show that university officials were in touch with the president of the TSU chapter of the Federalist Society, Daniel Caldwell and that the group is indeed listed as a registered student organization. Cain released a statement saying, “The explanation given by the university is blatantly inconsistent with the administration’s approval of the event for months. Black Lives Matter was not protesting the paperwork not being filed properly, they wanted to silence speech they disagreed with, and the University allowed it.”

This isn’t the first time students affiliated with Black Lives Matter have silenced free speech on college campuses. Last week, a group of protesters crashed an event at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, rushing the stage and preventing the invited speaker from continuing. The irony is that the invited speaker was a representative from the American Civil Liberties Union who intended to speak on the subject, “Students and the First Amendment.”

The difference is, at TSU the university president was colluding with Black Lives Matter to silence free speech and forcibly shut down a duly sanctioned event. Nor is it the first time that TSU has caved to the heckler’s veto. Back in May, the school canceled a commencement speech by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn amid outrage over the Republican senator’s support for the Trump administration.

Not that the suppression of free speech by university officials should come as a surprise. The entire anti-free speech movement on college campuses was inculcated and encouraged by left-wing university professors and administrators who hate the idea of the First Amendment and have worked to ensure that dissenting—which is to say, conservative—opinions are excluded or silenced on campus.

This time, the veil slipped, and TSU’s president was caught on camera openly inviting Black Lives Matter to shout down an invited guest speaker. Maybe now that it’s out in the open, we can drop the pretense that college administrators like TSU’s  Lane are in any way interested in the free exchange of ideas on their campuses, or in maintaining even the appearance of intellectual diversity—the only kind that should really matter on a college campus.

They prefer instead for their schools to become hermetically sealed bastions of progressive politics. No wonder they don’t want conservatives to speak. Without the distraction of debating actual ideas, they can get down to what they consider to be their real job: indoctrinating students and teaching them above all how to be political activists.

If Congress Does Not Act On Obamacare, Tax On Health Insurance Takes Effect Next Year

By
Gustavo
-
0

At the risk of interrupting our endless culture wars with some boring policy health policy news, congressional Republicans are on track to allow a brand new Obamacare tax to take effect next year, making health insurance even more expensive for millions of Americans. Beginning in January 2018, an Obamacare tax on health insurance plans for individuals and small businesses will go into effect—unless the GOP-controlled Congress delays it.

They’ve delayed it before. The tax was in place from 2014 to 2016, but in December 2015, Congress placed a one-year moratorium on collecting the tax for all of 2017, an estimated $13.9 billion. If the tax is allowed to go back into effect next year, it’ll be at a higher level, hauling in an estimated $14.3 billion and affecting more than 11 million households buying insurance on the individual market and 23 million households who are insured through small employers.

The reason it’ll be higher next year than it would have been this year is that the tax isn’t imposed at any specified rate because its purpose is to raise a set amount of revenue. So the Treasury sets the rate every year to ensure it raises the right amount. This chart from the Heritage Foundation shows how it’s supposed to work:

Because the tax is technically paid by insurance companies, not consumers, it’s effectively a hidden tax. Individuals and small businesses will only feel the effects of the tax in the form of higher premiums, which will increase by about 2.6 percent next year as a direct result of the tax. That works out to about $160 per person on the individual market and $500 per family on the small group market.

So will Republicans delay it again? Last month, Sen. Ron Johnson and ten other GOP senators introduced a bill that would delay the tax yet again. Sen. Ted Cruz, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, has been pushing for a delay for months now. In the House, Republican Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona are leading a bipartisan effort to do the same.

Since they can’t seem to repeal Obamacare, delaying this tax is the very least Republicans can do to blunt the deleterious effects of the health-care law. They could also take other steps short of repeal and replace, like weakening the individual mandate by expanding hardship exemptions and protecting seniors from new taxes on Medicare plans set to take effect next year.

They probably won’t do any of that. Here’s hoping they can muster the courage and wherewithal to do the bare minimum and delay yet another Obamacare tax hike.

Why ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Day’ Could Be Far Worse Than Columbus Day

By
Gustavo
-
0

Los Angeles and Austin, Texas have now joined the list of liberal-run cities that have eradicated Columbus Day from their calendars and replaced it with “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.” In LA, the desire to dis the European discoverer was so strong that they rejected a compromise proposal to keep Columbus Day and add “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” elsewhere.

“We need to dismantle a state-sponsored celebration of a genocide of indigenous peoples,” said Chrissie Castro of the LA Native American Indian Commission. “To make us celebrate on any other day would be a further injustice.”

Most Americans don’t agree. A new Marist poll finds 56 percent of Americans admire Columbus and support Columbus Day. They reject the idea that it’s a holiday about slaughter and enslavement. However, if we really want to commemorate horrifying, unspeakable violence and oppression in the Americas, I’ve got the perfect holiday: “Indigenous People’s Day.”

“Long before the white European knew a North American continent existed, Indians of the Northern Plains were massacring entire villages,” says George Franklin Feldman in the book “Cannibalism, Headhunting and Human Sacrifice in North America: A History Forgotten.” “And not just killed, but mutilated. Hands and feet were cut off, each body’s head was scalped, the remains were left scattered around the village, which was burned.”

Less Pocahontas and More Blood Sacrifice

When thinking of pre-Columbian America, forget what you’ve seen in the Disney movies. Think “slavery, cannibalism and mass human sacrifice.” From the Aztecs to the Iroquois, that was living among the indigenous peoples before Columbus arrived.

For all the talk from the angry and indigenous about European slavery, it turns out that pre-Columbian America was virtually one huge slave camp. According to “Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865,” by Tony Seybert, “Most Native American tribal groups practiced some form of slavery before the European introduction of African slavery into North America.”

“Enslaved warriors sometimes endured mutilation or torture that could end in death as part of a grief ritual for relatives slain in battle. Some Indians cut off one foot of their captives to keep them from running away.”

Things changed when the Europeans arrived, however: “Indians found that British settlers… eagerly purchased or captured Indians to use as forced labor. More and more, Indians began selling war captives to whites.”

That’s right: Pocahontas and her pals were slave traders. If you were an Indian lucky enough to be sold to a European slave master, that turned out to be a good thing, relatively speaking. At least you didn’t end up in a scene from “Indiana Jones And The Temple of Doom.”

Ritual human sacrifice was widespread in the Americas. The Incas, for example, practiced ritual human sacrifice to appease their gods, either executing captive warriors or “their own specially raised, perfectly formed children,” according to Kim MacQuarrie, author of “The Last Days of the Incas.”

The Aztecs, on the other hand, were more into the “volume, volume, VOLUME” approach to ritual human slaughter. At the re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs performed a mass human sacrifice of an estimated 80,000 enslaved captives in four days.

Also Widespread Torture and Cannibalism

According to an eyewitness account of “indigenous peoples” at work—in this case, the Iroquois in 1642, as observed by the Rev. Father Barthelemy Vimont’s “The Jesuit Relations”—captives had their fingers cut off, were forced to set each other on fire, had their skinned stripped off and, in one captured warrior’s case, “the torture continued throughout the night, building to a fervor, finally ending at sunrise by cutting his scalp open, forcing sand into the wound, and dragging his mutilated body around the camp. When they had finished, the Iroquois carved up and ate parts of his body.”

Shocked? Don’t be. Cannibalism was also fairly common in the New World before (and after) Columbus arrived. According to numerous sources, the name “Mohawk” comes from the Algonquin for “flesh eaters.” Anthropologist Marvin Harris, the author of “Cannibals and Kings,” reports that the Aztecs viewed their prisoners as “marching meat.”

The native peoples also had an odd obsession with heads. Scalping was a common practice among many tribes, while some like the Jivaro in the Andes were feared for their head-hunting, shrinking their victims’ heads to the size of an orange. Even sports involved severed heads. If you were lucky enough to survive a game of the wildly popular Meso-American ball (losers were often dispatched to paradise), your trophy could include an actual human head.

There Are No Pure Peoples in History

Slavery, torture, and cannibalism—tell me why we’re celebrating “Indigenous People’s Day” again? And we’re getting rid of Columbus Day to protest—what? The fact that one group of slavery-practicing violent people conquered another group of violent, blood-thirsty slavers? That’s a precis of the history of the Americas before Columbus arrived.

This has always been the fatal flaw of the Left’s politics of race guilt: Name the race that’s not “guilty”? Racism, violence, and conquest are part of the human condition, not the European one.

There is, however, one key difference between the European Conquistadors and the Incas, Aztecs, and Iroquois who conquered the Americas before them: In addition to violence and greed, the Europeans also brought literacy, liberalism, and the scientific method, all of which would transform America into the greatest champion of human freedom the world has never known.

Do the anti-Columbus activists who claim Europe’s conquest of America is a sin really want to live in a world where it never happened? Where is America an illiterate, technological backwater of tribal violence and ritual human sacrifice? Of course not. The only reason their ideological idiocy has free rein today is that Europeans showed up in 1492.

Democrats Crying About Money, Because Mike Pence Left The Colts Game

By
Gustavo
-
0

Few things can upstage Peyton Manning in the NFL. But as we’ve repeatedly seen this season, a growing cultural divide of our national politics continues to overshadow our national pastime, and it did again on Sunday.

Vice President Mike Pence and his wife were at Lucas Oil Stadium for the Indianapolis Colts hosting the San Francisco 49ers. The former Indiana governor came to watch Manning be honored in a halftime ceremony. Except Pence didn’t stick around to see it. After the national anthem, Pence left the stadium and tweeted about his departure.

“I left today’s Colts game because President Trump and I will not dignify any event that disrespects our soldiers, our Flag, or our National Anthem,” Pence wrote. “At a time when so many Americans are inspiring our nation with their courage, resolve, and resilience, now, more than ever, we should rally around our Flag and everything that unites us.”

“While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I don’t think it’s too much to ask NFL players to respect the Flag and our National Anthem,” he continued. “I stand with President Trump, I stand with our soldiers, and I will always stand for our Flag and National Anthem.”

Seemingly, everyone did feel entitled to an opinion, and almost instantly Pence became the number one trending topic on social media, with the help of a tweet from President Trump: “I asked @VP Pence to leave stadium if any players kneeled, disrespecting our country. I am proud of him and @SecondLady Karen.”

Do We Want the Administration Tracking Players?

Here’s the problem with many liberals on this issue: They’ll attack Trump’s administration for tweeting about the NFL, arguing it’s inconsequential compared to more pressing presidential matters. Yet they expect that same administration to have a detailed tally of every team and player participating in the protests.

Critics pointed out many 49ers have knelt over the past five weeks, and Pence should have known that going into the game. Sorry. I’m not expecting the vice president to have a fantasy football line-up of anthem kneelers. Simply tweeting disapproval requires little effort, and the majority of Americans share that sentiment. A recent poll by Reuters showed 58 percent of respondents believe NFL players should be required to stand for the national anthem.

Furthermore, the vice president of this country has every right to perceive the protests as disrespect to the flag. Not only is Pence first in line to run this country should anything happen to President Trump, he is also father to an active-duty Marine Corps officer. Pence’s son Michael may one day risk his life to protect this nation. The least NFL players can do is stand in respect of the brave men and women, like Michael, willing to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Now Liberals Care about Government Spending

The same liberals eager to increase taxes on government programs all of a sudden became fiscal conservation experts over Pence’s appearance in Indianapolis. Throw some conspiracy theory in as well, and there you have it: Pence’s trip was a political stunt at the waste of taxpayer dollars.

First of all, the intent of the trip was to pay respect to Manning. Who cares whether Pence stayed for 30 minutes or three hours. It shouldn’t matter how long a government official is in attendance. In fact, an early departure likely means the overall costs are reduced. If you’re going to argue a sporting event is a frivolous expenditure, especially in lieu of Puerto Rico disaster relief, then that’s a reasonable standard. However, Pence is not the first, nor will he be the last, elected official to enjoy a taxpayer-funded trip of athletic leisure.

Former President Barack Obama went to at least a dozen sporting events during his eight-year tenure. In fact, he attended so many Sports Illustrated documented the “best.” The same Democrats who championed Obama as a “cool” president and good uncle for watching the NCAA women’s basketball tournament with his brother-in-law in 2012 now think White House officials are wasting taxpayer money at sporting events.

Taxpayers also funded Obama’s security detail when he sat courtside for the Chicago Bulls season opener against the Cleveland Cavaliers in 2015. But hey, Obama was a huge Bulls fan. No big deal, that’s just water under the economic bridge, apparently.

Former Vice President Joe Biden attended Philadelphia sporting events numerous times, including an Eagles game last September to honor the 15th anniversary of 9/11. Biden stood for the anthem alongside first responders in a proper demonstration of respect.

So please, stop with the fake outrage over taxpayer dollars in selective instances. Our current vice president is no different than his predecessor. Pence attended a professional football game, stood for the anthem, and held firm in his beliefs. If you ardently defend NFL players’ right to protest, then understand viewers can protest as well—even if those viewers are elected officials.

Nancy Pelosi At Promotional DREAMer Press Conference Gets Shouted Down By DREAMers?

By
Gustavo
-
0

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was shouted down by open borders protesters during a Monday press event organized to promote her efforts to work with President Trump to pass a DREAM Act that would benefit illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children.

Pelosi was completing her opening remarks when she was literally upstaged by a group of approximately 40 young people calling itself the Immigrants’ Liberation Front. Reportedly carrying banners claiming that “Democrats are Deporters,” group members shouted that “Democrats created an out-of-control deportation machine,” and “Democrats are not the resistance to Trump.”

The interlopers also chanted: “We undocumented youth demand a clean bill … We undocumented youth demand that you do not sell out our community and our values …We undocumented youth will not be a bargaining chip for Trump.”

At one juncture, the apparent leader of the group seemed to suggest that the fate of all 11 million estimated illegal immigrants in the United States must be addressed.

The “bargaining chip” claim is an apparent reference to the position taken by Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that they would consider pairing a DREAM measure with increased border security while ruling out Trump’s favored border wall as part of the negotiation. Border hawks consider the Democrats’ promise of more border security and enforcement to be a “trick” and not substantially different from the so-called “Gang of Eight” bill that collapsed in 2013.

Pelosi wore a frozen grin as the protestors presented their grievances in the traditionally progressive call-and-response format. She then attempted to bring the event back under control by admiring their passion. Nevertheless, the event crashers persisted, causing the House minority leader to repeatedly request that they “Just stop it. Just stop it now.”

After approximately a half-hour of chanting and shouting, when it became clear that the protesters had no intention of relenting, Pelosi was forced to leave the event, effectively bringing it to a close before California Democratic Reps. Barbara Lee and Jared Huffman, community leaders, and DREAMers had an opportunity to speak.

Whether the protest represents a progressive sentiment that will impair the ability of Democrats’ congressional leadership to broker a DREAMer deal with President Trump remains to be seen.

Although immigration policy has divided the Republican caucuses in both the House and Senate, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) has said he would not demand border wall funding be tied to DREAMer legislation. Conversely, Rep. Raul Grijalva, (D-AZ), co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, claimed that the “vast majority of the progressive caucus” supports shutting down the government if any bill fails to meet their demands. Democrats are also considering using a discharge petition to bring a DREAM Act directly to the House floor for a vote.

Watch part of this ironic confrontation below:

Obamacare Is Causing Insurers To Delay Surgeries Patients Need

By
Gustavo
-
0

Senate Republicans are renewing their efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In doing so, the Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act creates a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure insurance companies actually provide care for patients.

The focus of the Obama administration was always on increasing raw insurance coverage for its citizens. That is, on measuring so-called “covered lives.” But the deeper focus needs to be on whether these “covered” individuals are actually able to receive the care they need.

Pre-authorization or prior authorization is a tool insurance companies use to limit the number of services they provide for their customers. In essence, it’s a simple way to reduce costs by delaying or not approving planned, non-emergency (elective) surgery for patients who need it. As the ACA made insurance company profit margins tighter, the companies turned to other profit-making strategies. This is frustrating to patients, costly to doctors, and violates the patient-physician relationship.

Focus on Patients, Not on Insurance Companies

Republicans can begin to fix this problem. Reform can be pro-market without being pro-business. That is, policy improvements can be pro-patient without fueling the insurance oligopoly.

The actual pre-authorization process is cumbersome. After a surgeon and his or her patient decide on a treatment plan, the insurance company must pre-approve the treatment or it won’t pay for it. If the insurance company won’t pay for the procedure, the patient likely won’t have surgery.

The very involvement of an insurance company in the actual health-care decisions of a patient and doctor should cause great pause. The most vital element of our entire health-care apparatus is the patient-physician relationship. To the surgeon, it’s sacrosanct. Insurance companies are trying to disrupt this for financial benefit.

The concept might be mildly tolerated if the pre-authorization process were grounded in patient related data and outcomes. It is largely not. It’s a fiscal instrument.

After an insurance company denies a surgery, the process usually moves to a peer-to-peer review. The surgeon and an insurance company representative working for the industry argue the merit of the case. The only caveat is that these are almost never actual peer-to-peer discussions. It is not uncommon for a neurosurgeon to have to argue for a case against, say, a pediatrician or a retired emergency room doctor working on behalf of the insurance company.

As intelligent or knowledgeable as these individuals may be, they have never performed the surgery in question. They are not practicing neurosurgery. They have never been forced to have the difficult conversations with neurosurgical patients. They are not critically writing, presenting, or reviewing scientific data in the field. It would be akin to having a policeman trying to tell a firefighter which fires he can put out. It’s inappropriate.

Trying to Transfer People’s Problems to Another Company

The approval or denial process is not developed or regulated by thought leaders in certain fields individually reviewing cases to ensure that physicians in the community are adhering to the strictest quality standards to ensure the best outcomes. It is just an intentional cost-saving administrative hurdle.

As such, the process is an effective deterrent. A busy clinician and his or her staff struggle to find the time to fight for every patient. That’s the very goal of the insurance company. It wants to delay care. Nearly 50 percent of patients who bought insurance on the ACA marketplace will switch insurance carriers in the next year. If the insurance company can frustrate, pause, and delay, the procedure can become another company’s problem in another fiscal year. If it can wait until the patient is 65, when Medicare kicks in, the government will pay for it.

Our group’s new study in a leading neurosurgical journal proves that the insurance companies are specifically targeting higher-cost procedures in this practice. In our series, surgeries involving instrumentation, or spinal fusions, were the most likely neurosurgical cases for insurance companies to delay. This data was from nearly 2,000 patients over a year. Certain insurance types are bigger culprits than others.

This is not about good medicine or clinical indications, it’s about limiting expenses. What is even more frustrating is that it attacks individual patients. And it is the patients who suffer.

When People Don’t Pay Their Own Expenses

Now, there is a reason for this practice; the cost and incidence of spine surgery have skyrocketed. The government is left to foot the bill. Medicare payments for lumbar fusions alone increased nearly 500 percent over a decade. But that is a science and policy issue. Surgeons are working ferociously to standardize and predict surgical indications and outcomes. Policy makers are contemplating legitimate free-market ways to reduce health-care cost and improve efficiency.

The issue at hand is that the ACA mandated that customers purchase the product of a private insurance company. This was a government-subsidized distortion of free-market principles. The impact of the pre-authorization process serves as a cautionary tale about the multiplying effect government intervention can have on business failures. Perverse incentives accidentally hurt, frustrate, and harm more people.

The challenge of true long-term free-market reform will be reducing moral hazard, the phenomenon whereby when people don’t have to bear responsibility for their actions, they are more likely to make increasingly risky decisions that end up increasingly hurting their neighbors. Republicans reformers need to close the distance between the entity paying for health-care and person actually receiving the benefit.

However, this should not be manipulated to allow insurance companies the ability to delay or deny care to an individual patient. It hurts people and destroys the patient-physician relationship. Surgeons have been quietly fighting this battle for their patients on a daily basis. It’s time that Senate Republicans enter the ring.

Trump Tells Muslim World To Stop Enabling Terrorism

By
Gustavo
-
0

President Trump kicked off his first presidential trip abroad by visiting Saudi Arabia, where he gave a speech Sunday to leaders from 50 Muslim countries about his vision for U.S.-Muslim relations. Trump is the only U.S. president to visit the Middle East on his first official trip overseas, and he used the occasion to talk about the great civilizational achievements of the Muslim world and the ways terrorism and Islamic radicalism have obstructed economic growth and prosperity in the region.

Then, he confronted these leaders with strong words about the unacceptability of coexisting with the violence radicalism brings: “There can be no tolerating it, no accepting it, no excusing it, and no ignoring it. Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith. Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death.”

While Trump emphasized America’s commitment to fighting terrorism around the globe and with working with its allies, he also made it clear to the Muslim leaders gathered Sunday that America will only achieve limited success if these countries don’t take the initiative in the fight against radical Islam:

Terrorism has spread across the world. But the path to peace begins right here, on this ancient soil, in this sacred land. America is prepared to stand with you—in pursuit of shared interests and common security. But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children. It is a choice between two futures —and it is a choice America cannot make for you. A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out. Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land, and drive them out of this earth.

Trump wants to make it clear that it’s the Muslim world, not the United States, that must lead the way in pushing back against Islamism. Part and parcel of that message is the fact that the United States isn’t going to bring democracy to the world as part of its counter-terrorism strategy—a significant departure from the Bush administration’s strategic efforts to establish democratic regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump repeatedly emphasized that the United States isn’t “here to lecture” or “tell people how to live.”

Our Job Isn’t to Colonize Your Politics or Minds

This echoes Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s speech to the staff of the State Department earlier this month, during which he said the United States would not require countries to adopt American values before being willing to work with them. His remarks drew heavy criticism from the media and some former state department officials, who said the Trump administration is leaving American values on the ground.

Trump wants to make it clear that America is not in the business of making the world look like America. Although democracy might be within the grasp of some countries, and indeed beneficial to them, it cannot be forced from the outside. While reiterating America’s commitment to its allies in the region and to fighting Islamic terrorism, Trump said the United States will “seek gradual reforms—not sudden intervention.”

Trump’s comments are also quite a departure from President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech, to which he invited members of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership against the wishes of the Egyptian government. Obama’s speech, panned by some as the kickoff of an “apology tour,” highlighted inclusivity and sent a message to the Muslim world that it was America, not Islamic extremism, that was at fault for terrorism. He drew comparisons between women’s rights in the Muslim world and America and compared the persecution of Jews over the millennia to the plight of the Palestinians today.

Trump, on the other hand, argued Sunday for the need for Muslim countries to ostracize and utterly reject the ideology that fuels Islamic extremism. He put the responsibility on them, not America, and, for the most part, called the problem by its name, although he did occasionally slip into using the Obama administration’s euphemistic language of “extremism.”

Many Foreign Leaders Find Terrorists Useful

Although there’s plenty in Trump’s speech to criticize—like his Bush-esque statement that we’re in a battle between “good and evil”—Trump is right that any lasting change must come from within the global Muslim community. That message must be repeated and reinforced. We cannot fight ISIS or the Taliban or prevent groups like them from rising up without the full cooperation of foreign governments or a real and significant change from within Islam’s various manifestations around the world.

But Trump might come to find that many of the leaders present at his speech in Saudi Arabia have more complicated relationships with terrorist groups and Islamist clerics than he realizes. Terrorists are sometimes used by leaders as helpful counterweights to other groups that threaten the ruling regime.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, for example, is alleged to have released from prison many of the radicals who formed the leadership of the Islamic State in Syria in 2011. That gave Bashar cover to claim the protests that were quickly developing into a civil war were, in fact, part of a terrorist insurgency, not an expression of the Syrian people’s desire for democracy.

Syria is an extreme example, but other countries have been known to do the same thing. One group of researchers recently published a study that found U.S. overseas missions to advise, train, equip, and assist foreign militaries often fail because “local leaders are typically more concerned with threats to their own rule from other elites within their state, especially a coup d’état from dissatisfied officers of militia leaders” than they are with external threats like ISIS.

Similarly, the support of powerful clerics, radical or not, is needed to retain power in many Muslim-majority countries. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, clerics who promote what the West would consider fundamentalist or extremist Islamic views have large followings, and courting them is an imperative for some Middle East leaders.

In the end, many of the Muslim leaders Trump was exhorting in Saudi Arabia may be unwilling to take any significant action against the radicals in their countries, and even if they do, driving out terrorists and radicals could dangerously destabilize these regimes. Trump—and the American people—should be prepared for either scenario.

6 Quick Takeaways From Trump’s Firing Of FBI Director Comey

By
Gustavo
-
0

President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday, at the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Here are a few things to keep in mind regarding that decision.

1) Comey Was Not Good at His Job

Precisely no one can argue with a straight face that Comey did a good job at the FBI, particularly in the last year. While the Democrats have only themselves to blame for nominating a presidential candidate under FBI investigation, Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information left much to be desired.

In part because Attorney General Loretta Lynch was caught secretly meeting with Clinton’s husband, Comey held a public press conference to talk about his recommendation regarding the investigation. He then proceeded to brutally condemn Clinton for her mishandling of classified information that violated the law while also recommending she not be prosecuted. His justification for failing to uphold the rule of law was to invent a non-legal standard of “intent” then declare that, inexplicably, Clinton had failed to meet that standard. His encroachment on the prerogatives of DOJ prosecutors was a grave miscarriage of justice.

He then violated the norms regarding secrecy during investigations by promising Congress he would provide an update if anything reopened the investigation. When investigators found thousands of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer shortly before the election, he was forced to notify Congress.

When he realized how politicized the Justice Department was, he should have spoken out and said there was a problem. He didn’t do that. He did what it took to keep his job. Then, when he was effectively put in charge of the investigation, he had an opportunity to uphold the rule of law, but he again didn’t have the courage to do the right thing.

His most recent testimony regarding letting Huma Abedin get away with mishandling classified information was also problematic, and showed how his failures with Clinton had secondary effects.

He appears to have been duped by a shoddy dossier, presenting it to the president-elect, which legitimized it in the eyes of the journalists who were leaked the meeting’s occurrence. He apparently tried to pay the Democratic opposition researcher to continue his efforts, despite the shoddy product. And he may have signed off on a FISA warrant request based on the dossier.

As my husband said of Comey’s practices in the last year, “It’s like he kept on trying to split the baby in two and just kept hacking it to pieces.”

2) The Firing Was Done from a Position of Strength

While at some point in the last year nearly everyone in DC has called for Comey to be fired, some Trump critics questioned the timing of Trump’s decision. The White House says Rosenstein, who recommended the firing in a detailed letter, had only been at the department for two weeks.

Public opinion against Comey had continued to grow, with a March poll showing only 17 percent of registered voters had a favorable view of Comey. As the poll director put it:

“Even in 1953, the height of McCarthyism, Gallup had 78 percent saying J. Edgar Hoover, Jr. was doing a good job and only 2 percent a poor job,” said Harvard-Harris Poll co-director Mark Penn. “Comey’s ratings, which are two-to-one negative, suggest a crisis of confidence in his leadership as top law enforcement officer.”

Some conservatives had recommended Trump delay the firing. In National Review‘s February 6, 2017, issue, the editors wrote, “At this point, Comey has lost the trust of nearly everyone in Washington and undermined the credibility of the Bureau. Trump may not want to dismiss him immediately for fear of validating the Democratic narrative about the elections — in which case he should wait for a decent interval.”

The delay helped in that much of the NeverTrump movement in the Republican Party has come around to either a friendly or non-antagonistic relationship with Trump. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s immediate response to the firing was, “I believe a fresh start will serve the FBI and the nation well.”

While the more unhinged elements of the anti-Trump crowd, both in the media and on the Left, are clinging to their hope that Trump will have been found to have coordinated with Russia in its hacking of the Democratic National Committee emails, most adults have realized that there’s not a lot of “there” to the Russia investigation, and likely not much beyond what is already known about Trump associates Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Mike Flynn.

The hopes for impeachment-level activity are fervent on the Left, but at least insofar as the Russia investigation is concerned, if there were something significant to it, the ever-leaking intelligence community probably would have gotten it out. The FBI leaks so much that as soon as Comey was fired, word got out via a leak, of course, about a grand jury subpoenaing Flynn associates. If they had something meaningful on Russia, instead of the non-breaking news that Trump makes some bad personnel decisions and some of Trump’s associates are bad at decision-making, they probably would have let the world know months ago.

3) It’s Reasonably Not Just the Clinton Probe

The reasoning Rosenstein lays out in his letter is airtight. And it’s a good and convincing read. Comey’s failures in the investigation of Hillary Clinton are more than sufficient grounds for firing, but observers are reasonably suspicious that Trump, of all people, would fire an FBI director because the latter had been unfair to her. Even on self-interested grounds, though, Comey’s failures in that probe don’t speak well of his ability to handle further investigations. And his politicization of the agency is widely known and corrosive to its mission.

He’s repeatedly suggested that he’s failed to investigate the leaks coming from the FBI. He’s under heat from Sen. Chuck Grassley for misjudgments related to the shoddy dossier that was used by the FBI despite its fatal flaws.

Despite the media’s daily efforts to push a narrative of treason by Trump and his associates, the investigation of Trump’s supposed ties to Russia has been mostly fact-free and highly manipulated. Whatever has been breathlessly reported as part of a leak campaign has turned out to be mostly sound and fury, signifying nothing, a far cry from collusion and treason. Democratic efforts to secure a special prosecutor make sense, not because of any actual evidence of collusion with Russia, but because a fishing expedition with subpoena power would be fun for critics to play with.

4) Democrats Have Been Begging for This, Only to Denounce It

Far too many people in politics are hypocrites. Democrats loved Comey and Republicans hated him in July. Then each team switched sides in October. For months, then, Democrats have been saying they lost confidence in Comey, felt he had violated the Hatch Act, and should be fired.

Harry Reid and other prominent Democrats accused him of violating federal laws. Roughly 1,000 headlines just last week blared that Clinton “blamed Comey” for her loss in November.

Yet as soon as Trump fired Comey, the narrative flipped to a strong defense of Comey and a claim that firing him was unacceptable.

While it is possible that critics of Trump truly thought Comey was corrupt and should be fired, but not in the precise way that Trump fired him, that’s a difficult argument to sell to the American people.

5) This Is Not a Coup. Get a Hold of Yourself

Speaking of people losing their ever-loving minds, David Frum tweeted the following:

A coup is defined as “a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.”

Trump fired someone who worked for him. He fired someone in whom people in both major political parties had lost confidence. Even if you disagree with the prudence of said firing, that is not a coup. It’s only a coup if you believe that non-elected representatives should have less authority than bureaucrats.

 https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/862139988548485125

Anyone is welcome to believe that this firing was unwise and to make the case for that, but it’s wise to make that case calmly. Here’s an example of someone claiming that Comey getting fired for mishandling an investigation was a world-altering event of doom:

CNN media reporter Dylan Byers was extremely, extremely excited by Toobin’s partisan commentary:

One wonders if people in newsrooms have any idea how such hysteria comes off to others, serving only to whip people into frenzies or cause them to tune it out completely.

On the bright side, Politico quickly ran an article asking scholars whether the president firing someone who works for him is a constitutional crisis. Most people responded reasonably.

If Trump replaces Comey with a corrupt individual, that would be cause for concern. But firing someone who was bad at his job is at least arguably not an existential crisis, all due respect to Toobin.

6) Investigations Will Continue

Frum fleshed out his claim into a conspiracy theory essay about Comey being fired because he knew too much, or something. Toobin also stated, without any evidence, that Comey was fired because the investigation was “Getting Too Close for Comfort.” The New York Times editorial page, bless their hearts, opined that “Mr. Comey was fired because he was leading an active investigation that could bring down a president.”

In the real world, of course, there is no indication Comey was fired because he’s on target over some massive revelation or conspiracy.

Media commentators worried about the investigations seem to think that Comey was personally leading an investigation of Trump, rather than the bureau investigating Trump associates and any potential ties with Russia. Comey wasn’t personally leading that investigation, but the agency performing the investigations. As such, those investigations will continue. In fact, they will continue with less of the politicization and problems they had a day ago.

1...91011...16Page 10 of 16
- Advertisement -

RECENT POSTS

© Website Created by Gustavo Frias