Posse Incitatus

Time to Play Hardball

Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ought to pay close attention to President Trump. They could learn a few valuable lessons about fearlessly and boldly taking action -- the press and Democrats be damned.

For many years, conservatives have complained bitterly about hard-core leftists like former Sen. Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. But give the devil his due: When those type of leftist true believers are in power, and they have the majority, they go full speed ahead. They are on a mission, and they take no prisoners. How else do you think we ended up with Obamacare?

It's time for Ryan and McConnell to do the same. Trying to play nicey-nice with the Democrats, and attempting to win the love of the corrupt news media, are fool's errands. Surely Ryan couldn't be so naive that he is incapable of learning that important lesson, could he? On second thought, perhaps I shouldn't have written that last sentence...

My plea to Ryan and McConnell: Observe how Trump implements bold, badly needed policies but doesn't get rattled by the withering criticism that invariably comes his way. For example:

• The travel ban on six predominantly Muslim nations in the Middle East and Africa;
• Criticizing NATO and demanding that European nations contribute their fair share in dollars, soldiers and resources to keep the organization running;
• Opposing NAFTA and the TPP trade deal, to the chagrin and outrage of all of those vaunted solons of the State Department, World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund and acadamia.
• Eliminating heavy-handed EPA regulations created by President Barack Obama to please the global warming crowd;
• Advocating repealing and replacing Obamacare, an action perceived by Democrats as not being undertaken to improve healthcare, but to give the middle finger to Barack Obama;
• Appointing upset-the-apple-cart outsiders to cabinet positions -- e.g. Scott Pruitt as EPA chief and Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary... The list goes on.

While I have criticized Trump for too often being thin-skinned and getting sidetracked with silly Twitter wars over inane fare such as beauty contests and various "fake news" stories that really aren't worth the time, I do admire the way he doubles down and fights fire with fire when attacked by the relentless, pernicious Left.

President George W. Bush allowed himself to be a pin cushion and seldom responded to the harsh criticism coming his way. After a few years of 24/7 negativism, sarcasm, derision and bitter hatred, his presidency was in tatters; his effectiveness was zilch. Trying to take the high road and project an "I'm above it all" image is futile when you're a Republican in the White House. Because the Democrats believe that to rule is their inherent, God-given right. Well, I guess I shouldn't put the "G" word in there, since many Dems are atheists or at best benchwarmer Christians. Democrats out of power are like a vicious, rabid pit bull that's been cornered. Watch out!

Trump knows that he needs to push back against the unhinged liberals and pompous progressives that are as numerous as grains of sand on the beach. He knows that he can affect the narrative for the better -- even if only slightly so -- at least casting some doubt on liberal claims and forcing liberals to occasionally be on the defensive to justify their claims.

"The best defense is a good offense" goes for far more than football, the legal field and other endeavors. It applies very keenly to the Oval Office when it's a Republican who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. This is a lesson Ryan and McConnell need to learn, and fast. If they don't, their party will take a beating in the 2018 and 2020 elections.

It ought to start with the vote on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. If the Democrats dig in their heels with a lengthy and bitter filibuster, McConnell ought to invoke the so-called "nuclear option" so that Gorsuch can be approved by a simple majority vote rather than 60 votes to end the filibuster. Harry Reid started it; McConnell may well finish it.

Our nation is in deep trouble on so many fronts. If Trump and the Republicans do not succeed in implementing many of their key initiatives, the fallout will be grave for the entire nation. But I am not sure Ryan and McConnell even grasp that. So let's try a different approach to play to their interests: Their cushy jobs, ego-massages, center-of-attention fantasies and enjoyment of the perks of power will come to a crashing halt if they don't awaken from their stupors and join the Trumpening.

Brexit formally begins

Today the UK gave formal notice to the European Union that it is exercising its right to leave.  Nine months of panic and obstruction have come to naught.  The will of the British people and their Sovereign has been put into effect.

Hard to believe that only a year ago this was considered unthinkable by the chattering classes.  As with the election of Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed experts are amazingly consistent in getting everything wrong.

Barack Obama was fond of referring to the "right side of history."  To his progressive mind, we were moving inexorably to a leftist vision of world government of the elites for the elites.  Conservatives were fighting a rear-guard action against destiny; progressive victory was assured.

Not so much.  Brexit is about more than simply improving trade and economic conditions in the UK, it is about asserting the core importance of the "nation" portion of the "nation-state" construct.  The EU was an attempt to build a state without there being any nation.  That is why it failed.

Many on the right may argue that the UK is too far gone to be saved.  Immigration, cultural decay and unresponsive elites have taken their toll.

Perhaps.  But history rarely moves in a straight line.  Trends continue until they change, and the inflection points are usually visible only in hindsight.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a resurgent cultural confidence will cause the British government to take a stronger line against radical Islam and affronts to the traditional values of their people.  There as here, it is not necessary for mass deportations to remove people hostile to the culture and existing laws - people will likely leave on their own once they learn they are unwelcome and that their unreasonable demands will no longer be met.

We can only hope.

Napoleon once said that the moral is to the physical as two is to one, and the events of the last year have proven the point.  Nations that were once adrift and demoralized are now rising.  Note that both the UK and the US are seeing a surge in business optimism and consumer sentiment.  People with confidence in themselves and their country are like that.

What better way to conclude this post than with a quote from Winston Churchill: 

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

The myth of political momentum

The debacle of last weekend already has the political establishment claiming not only that Obamacare reform is dead, but so is Trump's agenda.

This is false.

President Trump moves at his own pace and in his own time.  He cares not a whit for what the usual beltway commentators think about his policies.

In this respect he is reminiscent of Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant.

Prior to Grant taking command of the Union war effort, the Army of the Potomac followed a familiar (and demoralizing) pattern.  They would spend months preparing for an offensive, advance against Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, receive a sharp check on the battlefield, and withdraw in defeat.

This pattern repeated itself year after bloody year, from the summer of 1861 to the spring of 1864, when Grant took command.

Grant's initial offensive was a disaster. Lee's Confederates struck Grant's forces in the Wilderness, delivering a sharp rebuke.  Grant's secondary offensives also failed. 

But Grant didn't withdraw and lick his wounds, as his predecessors did.  He forged ahead, hammering Lee's army and marching resolutely to the rebel capital.  Despite being hampered by incompetent political subordinates who snatched victory from the jaws of defeat at every turn, Grant never relented.  His army stalled outside of Petersburg, but it held the Confederacy in a death grip.

With Lee locked in an enervating embrace, the stage was set for William Tecumseh Sherman to deliver the coup de grace to the Confederacy and win the war.

I'm not the first person to see the similarity, I admit.  But this isn't about a single campaign, it's about a mentality.  Donald Trump understands that defeat is a state of mind.  He doesn't give a damn what the media says. 

Trump is barely two months into his presidency.  He's been stalled on the Obamacare front, but his offensive continues elsewhere.  Like Grant, Trump knows that he's only whipped when he admits he's whipped.

That is something The Donald just doesn't do.

The death of higher education

I'm old enough to remember when college was a place where one went to find varied and challenging opinions.  I recall schools hosting debates between polar opposites and people relishing the opportunity to engage a philosophical or political opponent on the public stage.

Those days are gone.

Via the Hated Instapundit, here's an interesting article about higher education's assault on free thought.

It's interesting to note that even as the author proclaims what should be obvious about the importance of free speech and open debate, he still feels the need to check the appropriate social boxes by denouncing Charles Murray and his book.

The comments are also interesting, particularly one offering a rhetorical question of whether overt racists should be given a platform on campus. 

The answer is obviously "yes."

Suppressing the public expression of thought doesn't make it go away, it merely drives it underground and leaves it unrebutted.  When I was in school, the Holocaust revisionists used to put ads in the campus daily.  They were persuasive only to the ignorant.

Nowadays I supposed they wouldn't be allowed to place those ads, but the proper way to deal with them is to expose their falsehoods with the cleansing light of irrefutable truth.  Show the newsreels, offer eyewitness testimony, and unleash the overwhelming evidence of what happened and let people see (and decide) for themselves.

Trying to smother the thought only allows it to fester and plants the seed of doubt in people who would otherwise be unconvinced.

"Gosh, if they won't even debate, maybe it's because they really don't have the facts on their side."

Again, in olden times, one might get to see these debates in public.  The audience would go and show their disapproval with obstinate silence rather than catcalls or physical violence.

The fact of the matter is that universities are killing themselves with this intolerance.  There's no point in going to college these days.  More money can be had in vocational training and there are plenty of high-paying jobs waiting.  You can't outsource your mechanic or electrician.  Medical techs also make good money.  Why spend $200,000 learning the Hierarchy of Privilege only to work at Starbucks when you graduate?

Employers are also figuring out that these narrow-minded snowflakes are useless in the workplace.  They demand everything and give nothing.  Push them hard and they have a nervous breakdown.

Add to that there are the constant Title IX witch hunts, which seek to retroactively criminalize boorish but legal behavior.  I talk to alumni and we are amazed at how an unholy alliance of militant feminists and feckless administrators are trying to turn the clock back to the 1890s when women were regarded as delicate flowers in need of constant support.

Maybe the Student Union should install fainting couches?

They might go back to sex-segregated dorms except that the trans crowd wouldn't stand for it. 

And yes, I am highly amused that the same people that want to describe a bad breakup as "sexual assault" and words as "actual violence" are completely cool with allowing men in drag into the co-ed showers.

It's a jumble of nonsense and a waste of money.  The sooner it goes away, the better.

Incompetence Continues In DC

Speaker Paul Ryan may be just as bad as his predecessor, John Boehner. His failure to deliver a health care bill to repeal and replace Obamacare certainly casts major doubt on his instincts, judgment and legislative competence.

And President Trump, for his part, cannot be considered blameless. For too long, he has been disengaged from the nagging details and has failed to brush up on the issues. It was a shockingly naive and callow observation when Trump stated, "Who knew that healthcare could be so complicated?" Oh, only about 200 million people, give or take a few million.

As for the staunch conservatives who objected to Ryancare on reasonable grounds, but were unyielding during negotiations, a pox on your house! Isn't it better to get an imperfect bill with some redeeming qualities and the hope that incremental improvements can continue in the future, than to get nothing at all? This "all or nothing" mentality is bullheaded and ultimately unproductive.

The news media, Democrats and Never-Trumpers are gloating, and acting as if this is it. There will never be any more attempts to "reform" the carcass of Obamacare. I use quotation marks around "reform" because it's sort of like saying you're going to save and nurse to health a corpse found in the middle of the road. You can't fix what is utterly an irreparable piece of garbage.

But with that being said, Trump and many other Republicans are sadly mistaken if they think their failure to move forward with a solution absolves them of responsibility for improving our healthcare system. They believe the Democrats still own the failing healthcare system, but that's wrong. Yes, it was Obama and misguided Democrats who marched in lockstep to pass this albatross, but Obama and many of the Dems who voted for it are long gone. The Republicans control all branches of government, and if they don't implement improvements to our dysfunctional healthcare system, they will be held accountable at the ballot box.

I'll make the same observation about healthcare reform that I've said repeatedly about immigration reform: It ought to be done in smaller increments. Because attempting to wrap everything into one ball of wax just mucks things up. It ends up being a Christmas tree grab bag for special interests. Okay, enough with the mixed metaphors...

Let's also remember that Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price can probably implement some effective reforms simply through the regulatory process. Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines and eliminating asinine policy requirements such as maternity and OB/GYN coverage for men would be a start.

And let's be clear: This business of trying to wave a magic wand and do away with pre-existing conditions -- allowing people to wait until they are sick or have an accident until they begin paying for insurance -- is nonsense. What would your home insurer think if you never had insurance, but then after your home was destroyed by fire you suddenly called and said you'd like to start up a policy ("How much is my first premium? Just send me the bill!") and expected the insurer to pay for a new home? Utterly preposterous. Catastrophic coverage ought to be available to all who cannot afford big premiums, but want protection from devastating bills should they become sick or sustain a serious injury.

The Republicans had better get their act together, or many of them will be bounced from office in 2 years, and the damage they do to an already weak-ass brand name -- "Republican" -- will be irreparable. Wake up, Trump. Look alive, Ryan. Get ready, Mitch. Time's-a-wasting.

RIP CHUCK BERRY -- It's been a week since I last posted, so I am a few days late with my R.I.P. tribute to the late, great Chuck Berry. I have long said that Berry was the true father of rock-n-roll, and far more talented than the vaunted Elvis Presley. For one thing, Berry was a composer as well as a singer and guitarist. Elvis had a great voice, good looks and major sex appeal, but I have always felt that good singers are a dime-a-dozen compared to great composers. In other words, composing excellent music is a talent far more rare than singing beautifully. Just as important, Chuck Berry's music was heavy with rollicking guitar licks during an era when much of rock was vocal-oriented.

When I think of 50s acts, I think of a lot of silly made up words like Doo-Wap, Ya-Ya, and the "A-weema-weh, a-weema-weh, a-weema-weh, a-weema-weh" of the Tokens' lovely "The Lion Sleeps Tonight." But while others were shoving packs of Marlboro up their sleeve, greasing their ducktails and working on their falsetto harmonizing, Berry was jamming with never-before-heard, amped up/sped up fusion of blues, country and rockabilly. He patented the famous "duckwalk" across the stage. The raucous, irreverent nature of his music was underscored by the fact he was black. The Klan must've been shitting bricks!

And Chuck's lyrics were witty and clever. "Roll Over Beethoven," "Rock and Roll Music" and "Johnny B. Goode" were just a few of his huge hits. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys and many other major acts credited Berry as a strong influence, and covered several of his tunes.

When I was 14 years old, two years after Berry's novelty hit "My Ding-a-Ling" (obviously not among his better tunes), I saw Berry in concert at the Midland (Mich.) County Fairgrounds. And his warmup act was none other than blues legend Muddy Waters. Both were well past their prime, but put on a great show and were well received by a predominantly white audience.

My older sister reminded me the other day that I brought along my Panasonic tape recorder and recorded a cassette tape of some of the concert. That was the best we could do in those days of primitive technology. My family didn't have a video camera, and even if we had owned one, the concert security folks probably would not have allowed me to bring it inside the gates. Looking back, I am surprised my parents even allowed me to go to the concert, but I guess they had their hands full with "bigger fish to fry," as the saying goes.

Chuck Berry had a few run-ins with the law, and some dalliances with other women before reuniting with his wife. He was a flawed individual, as we all are. But his talent and bold persona were especially impressive when one considers that his heyday was an era of Jim Crow laws, rampant discrmination and blatant bigotry against blacks. Chuck knew that his genius and charisma would transcend the hatred, and he was right. R.I.P., Chuck. You truly could "play guitar like ringing a bell."

 

 

Is Paul Ryan an incompetent hack or a traitor?

If one relies exclusively on the fun-house mirror that is Democrat partisan press for news, it may appear that President Trump was damaged by the health care debacle.

However, the true architect of the failed GOP attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare was the Golden Boy of Conservatism, Inc.:  House Speaker Paul Ryan.

There are two possibilities:

1. Paul Ryan actually is a barely-sentient idiot whose best work was a cobbled-together piece of crap that was dead on arrival, or
2. Paul Ryan and Conservatism, Inc. never intended to repeal Obamacare or do anything else they campaign on.

I'm leaning heavily toward Option 2, but as the Hated Instapundit likes to say, I'm willing to embrace the healing power of "and."

 

 

The Sophistry Runneth Over

"Fake news" has attracted lots of attention in recent months, and indeed, seems to be an obsession for many political observers.

Part of the problem is, of course, the enormity of the 24/7 Internet & cable news propaganda machine and, in a larger context, the overall information treadwheel upon which many of us breathlessly scamper. No one has the time, energy or inclination to sift through all of the information, drill down and ferret out "facts" and "truth," which themselves seem to have definitions in flux.

But that's not all. The utter lack of critical thinking afflicting literally tens of millions of Americans is distressing, to say the least. There are preposterously phony and fake stories or talking points, and most people can spot them in an instant. But a much bigger threat is the sophistry that permeates so much of the political dialogue; the smooth sounding double-talk that political hacks, pundits, TV commentators and talk radio hosts repeat ad nauseam as if it were gospel. You know: Talking points that sound authoritative, reasonable and compelling, but which crumble like a stale croissant when exposed to just a little bit of analysis.

I have a few talking point pet peeves which I will address here -- memes that the Obama administration and its cult-like followers have used and are still using -- having to do with A) Obamacare; B) Executive orders, i.e., the Obama vs. George W. Bush tally; and C) Deportations of illegal immigrants.

First let's take a look at Obamacare. It has resulted in rapidly rising premiums, high deductibles, and insurance companies pulling out of health care exchanges because they know they'll lose money hand-over-fist if they keep doing what they're doing.

The Obama slappies have two main talking points: 1) Obamacare has increased the number of insured Americans by 22 million. In actuality, Obamacare has pushed millions into Medicaid. This means their choices of healthcare providers will be restricted, since many physicians and clinics have decided to leave Medicaid due to its pitiful reimbursement rates. And patient waiting times will be dramatically increased. Plus, Medicaid programs are in a precarious condition in many states due to rising costs and budgetary constraints. While the fiscal future of Medicaid is not as bleak as is forecast for Medicare or Social Security, it is definitely not in any condition to be taking on greater burdens as far as the eye can see.

Now let's consider the argument that millions more are insured than before Obamacare. Well, "INSURED" is a term so broad, a Mack Truck could drive through it. You can be "insured," and still pay exorbitant monthly premiums, face high deductibles, and have difficulty finding providers to give you the benefits to which you're entitled.

When Obamacare was being debated seven years ago, few people brought up the point that there is a doctor shortage, and in a broader sense, an overall healthcare provider shortage. You can promise all manner of benefits in an insurance policy, or through legislation, but if an inadequate number of doctors and other healthcare professionals are able and willing to provide those services, patients will be faced with long waiting times, and in some cases, just won't receive service. And -- this is elementary -- if a family must pay thousands of dollars annually in premiums, plus face deductibles in the thousands of dollars, what good is insurance if it breaks the bank and you often can't even use it?

Moving on to a second bit of left-wing sophistry, the matter of presidential executive orders, you may recall that the Left pushed back hard when President Obama was deservedly criticized for overstepping his authority with executive orders. When he couldn't get Congress or the Supreme Court to go along with his statist ideology, he simply ruled by executive fiat. A prime example would be his numerous executive actions waiving certain aspects of Obamacare for his cronies. Also, his orders granting sweeping powers to the EPA to clamp own on CO2 emissions, his deferral of deportations for people who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents (later overruled by the Supreme Court), and his various gun-related orders.

In other words, Obama was not shy about issuing executive orders on major issues. So while the left-wingers loved to spout off how George W. Bush issued more executive orders than Obama (291-277), they seemed oblivious to this simple fact: The content and effects of executive orders -- i.e., how major and consequential they are -- is far more significant than the number of orders. Many of Bush's orders were mere administrative tweaks -- "housekeeping," to use the vernacular. But Obama, being his imperious self, issued sweeping, major decrees.

Finally, we have the Obama supporters' disingenuous claim that Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any other American president. Well, let me resurrect a favorite quip I use to heap derision upon naive liberals who are in love with the concept of "universal healthcare" in hellhole nations such as Cuba: You could pass out bandages and aspirin to all, and you'd have "universal healthcare." 

In the same absurd sense, according to the Obama administration's broad definition of "deportation," you can turn people away at the border and they count as having been deported. Admittedly, this preposterous definition began under the  G.W. Bush administration, but this type of tally was especially convenient for the Obama administration to falsely claim that it actually cared about protecting our nation from an onslaught of non-assimilating immigrants, some of whom bring disease and crime, and many of whom burden the social safety net.

In an age of 140-character Tweets, pitifully short attention spans, inane garbage on TV and a severe dearth of critical thinking, simplistic sophistry is often all it takes for demagogues to brainwash the gullible.

 

Judicial anarchy

Historians may view decision by three federal judges to issue injunctions against Trump's executive orders on immigration as the last gasp of the doctrine of judicial supremecy.

From a legal standpoint, they are nothing more than primal screams from a lifetime appointee.  If actually enshrined into case law, they would allow judges to effectively control American foreign police and would remove the right of the people to to act through their elected leaders on key matters of national security.

Border control is the most basic aspect of national security.  Without the ability to control who enters, the United States will become the world's rest stop.  Other people with far more legal expertise have gone through the various decisions line-by-line to analyze their vicious stupidity, but the point here is that this is but the latest and most extreme example of how the judicial branch of government is destroying itself.

In my lifetime, the courts have claimed the following powers in defiance of the people they are supposed to serve:

1. The power to determine when human life begins,
2. The power to determine if capital punishment may be imposed,
3. When it is lawful to discriminate against people based on race or sex,
4. When the government may lawfully take property from one citizen and give it to another in the name of economic development,
5. The definition of marriage,
6. When the state can compel people to create art against their religious beliefs,
7. When the state can compel people to buy products they don't want.

The list can go on, but these are core rights that no free people would willingly surrender.

One can argue the above disputes on the merits and there are still lively public debates on all of these issues, but the proper forum for their resolution was the give-and-take of elective government. 

The traditional solutions - the federalist solution - would be for people in the various localities to arrange matters as seemed best to them.  This would produce certain contradictions and a level of unevenness, but in the end, a result would be found that appealed to the preference of the majority while respecting the views of the minority. 

These solutions - even if wrong - would still be viewed as legitimate and the losing side would renew the struggle in an effort to convince fellow citizens to willingly embrace their views.

Imposing these policies by judicial fiat destroys this process of debate and the current polarization is to a great extent the result of the knowledge that current policy debates are now all-or-nothing based on who appoints the judges who will decide them.

Consider for a moment how much less controversy there would be if the Supremes hadn't decided to impose homosexual "marriage" on the nation.  Many states were already moving in that direction and even more conservative ones were likely to create a form of "civil union" that would have provided legal status without redefining an ancient human institution.  Indeed, many religious people who opposed a redefinition of marriage could sincerely support the civil option.

What the Supreme Court did was take compromise of the table; it radicalized the discussion because five unelected and unaccountable people wanted it to be so.

The Supreme Court decisions were bad enough, but now we have low-level judges bringing the nation's border security to a halt while the preen for the cameras. 

The law only carries weight where it is accorded respect.  The less people care about it, the less authority it will hold.  It was one thing to attack citizens in their homes and businesses because individual people have no central point on which to rally.  Should they wish to sue, the court could (and often does) deny them "standing" and refuses to even hear them.

But now the powerful executive branch has been attacked deep in its own territory.  Congress has long tolerated encroachments from the other branches because it allows the members to strut and complain without any accountability.  The executive is another creature entirely.

I've mentioned this before, but Trump is in many ways a litmus test, a spotlight on the corruption in Washington.  More than anything else, he is exposing the blowhards in the GOP as a bunch of feckless cowards who talk a conservative game on the campaign trail, only to betray their constituents once they get in office.

Under squishes like the Bushes and with Democrat presidents, they had cover, but Trump is forcing them to cast their votes and be counted.  This is arguably the true source of Conservatism, Inc.'s hatred of him. 

Like free speech and civility on campus, the left will shortly discover that a respected judiciary is something they're going to miss when it's gone.

 

St. Patrick's Day and white nationalism

One of the salient features of the modern left is the inability to tell when it is being serious.  One of the Hated Instapundit's minions found this and no one is really sure if it is a parody.

The reason for the confusion is that the left has become explicitly anti-white.  The old goal of a colorblind society and racial integration has been replaced by naked appeals to racial grievance and solidarity.  "Whiteness" is the Great Satan that all right-thinking people need to oppose, though what will replace it is entirely unclear.

The irony is that the old instruments of white supremacy have all but disappeared.  The KKK is almost gone, and a good many of its remaining members are likely paid informants.  Mark Steyn's run-in with the hate speech commissars in Canada demonstrated that a good deal of the racist posts on Stormfront were made by police or investigators.

However, in imagining white nationalism, the left is now creating it.  No ethnic group likes being told it needs to drop dead or is the root of all evil. 

There was a time within living memory when groups now lumped together as "white" didn't like each other very much.  WASPs had few good things to say about the krauts, frogs, micks, spics, dagos, polacks and even the limeys were looked down on as effeminate.  The avatar of this belief was the fictional Archie Bunker, who waged weekly war on his dim-witted daughter and idiot son-and-law.

In 1970, there might be some consternation about an Italian marring into and Anglo-Saxon family, and gaining a Polish branch was fraught with jokes regarding the alleged stupidity of that tragic people.

Now, they're all tarred with the same brush.  They all carry the same bland label of "white."

One of the salient features of the left is its ignorance of history.  They love to invoke Hitler analogies, but they are always wrong, often hilariously so.

The Irish people suffered greatly under their English overlords and maintained their faith and language against far worse sanctions than tweets and social-media shunning.  The notion that millions of people would roll over and submit to extermination without any resistance other than name-calling could only originate among clueless millennials and their clueless media standard-bearers.

The left likes to talk about how diversity brings strength, and in a sense it does:  All those put-upon Poles, Italians, Irish, Germans, French and Spanish now have something to unite themselves with the patriotic remnant of the Anglo-Saxon ruling class.

The left is poking the tiger.  It won't like what it gets if the beast actually rouses itself and strikes back.

 

 

 

Just Say 'No' to RyanCare

House Speaker Paul Ryan is up to his old tricks again...

The same guy who loved to criticize Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, and who caved to Barack Obama repeatedly on budget deals, is now doing his best John Boehner by trying to pass watered down legislation, i.e., The American Health Care Act (AHCA). But this so-called "good start" to repealing and replacing Obamacare is weak and misguided.

AHCA keeps in place the mandate to buy health insurance, maintains subsidies, throws more money at Medicaid, does not eliminate the monopoly-like stranglehold insurance companies have due to the restriction against selling policies across state lines, and leaves in place a tangle of onerous regulations.

Perhaps worst of all, AHCA buys into the notion that the federal government ought to retain its front-and-center role in subsidizing and micromanaging health care. Excessive regulation and micromanagement -- the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is Exhibit A -- are a primary reason why health care is such a mess. Liability lawsuits and insurance premiums are another culprit, but that's a topic for another day.

Ever take a look at the minutiae the regulators deal with? Things like physician fee schedules, relative value units, the "resource-based relative value system" and other mind-numbing criteria? It's a witches brew of mischief and turmoil that stifles market forces and distorts the market.

People complain about the proverbial $30 aspirin or $80 for a bandage, not to mention the $1,000-$2,000 per day costs of a hospital room. But health care providers getting squeezed by Uncle Sam on one front -- providing certain procedures to Medicare and Medicaid patients at ridiculously low prices -- have to make up that revenue shortfall by charging more for other goods and services. Not to mention, patients are having greater difficulty even finding clinics that accept Medicare or Medicaid due to these programs' pitiful reimbursement rates.

A solid group of conservatives in the U.S. House is opposed to the Ryan plan, and believes he can achieve much more than he's shooting for through the budget reconciliation process. The process, which Democrats used to pass Obamacare seven years ago, does not require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. It simply requires majority vote.

But in order to qualify for this process, the legislation in question has to have fiscal ramifications. Ryan claims the insurance sales across state lines and an effort to repeal regulations don't qualify for this standard. But stop and think of it: Insurance companies pay taxes and fees, and their rates and policies affect the size of subsidies. So this matter is rich with revenue and budgetary ramifications. Ditto for taking the scalpel to regulations, which are another hidden cost that manifests itself in the $15 Tylenol pill or stitches that cost $500 apiece.

Let's hope the conservatives in the House and Senate will hold strong, and that President Trump keeps his promise to strike a bargain. He has at least been willing to meet with the conservatives and hear them out, and that's a great sign.

Ryan and the rest of the Republicans must realize that they have a limited window of opportunity to enact effective legislation. If they blow this opportunity or foolishly try to court Democrat votes, they will pay a heavy price.