We’ve had little to say lately about the monstrosity of Obamacare, partly because it’s established what a horrible mess it is, and partly because if we tried to chronicle each of its disasters, we wouldn’t have time or space to write about anything else.
But it’s worth using some time and space to mention a rare example of the mainstream media actually doing its job, in this case, the Los Angeles Times reporting what any reasonable person would conclude is another Obama administration lie.
Savoring the mandate that every American buy its product, far too much of the insurance industry endorsed Obamacare. But don’t mistake an eventual industry bailout for loyalty to political allies. The administration’s intention was and always will be to exterminate private-sector health insurance, and the purpose of any bailout will be to conceal that reality and tighten political control, not to repay past assistance.
If we’re gratified to see the L.A. Times doing its job, we’re positively incredulous to see the Department of “Justice” apparently doing likewise. Most likely, Eric Holder’s politicized operation realized even its extraordinarily high threshold of embarrassment would be crossed if it did nothing about the Oregon Obamacare exchange that burned through a quarter-billion taxpayer dollars and signed up no one—as in precisely zero applicants.
But don’t let glitches like the potential bailout of a ruined industry or a quarter-billion dollars up the chimney in return for literally nothing trick you into thinking Obamacare is a bad idea. Nosiree. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has ferreted out the truth that we should have seen all along: Obamacare’s problems are caused by racism on the part of its opponents
Rockefeller’s term expires in January. We’re sorry to say he isn’t running for re-election.
It’s uncomfortably close to an ad hominem argument, but for the benefit of those who want to hedge their bets on climate catastrophe, we must remark on a conspicuous feature of the global warming crusade: The most passionate advocates of sweeping government action to control Earth’s climate are people who are habitually wrong about everything else.
And just as the administration rolls out its most aggressive climate regulations, the people who are always wrong have been showing up in bunches.
Newly-minted college graduates heard a voice emanating from within the empty suit of Secretary of State John Kerry, lamenting the increase in supposedly human-induced natural disasters which in fact haven’t increased.
Days later, Kerry beclowned himself again, blathering about record high temperatures that were neither records nor exceptionally high.
Then came California’s Governor Moonbeam, blaming wildfires in the current drought on global warming, oblivious to greenhouse theory that says warming means more evaporation leading to more precipitation.
Of course Al Gore—assailed the low character of those who dispute his climate theology.
When these people switched from “global warming” to “climate change,” it was obvious they had no idea what the climate would do but intended to exploit whatever it did. And when they switched from climate change to “climate disruption,” it was obvious they knew their story wasn’t holding up.
So why go on? Simple: It’s easier than finding honest work.
No need to over analyze this one. It’s what they call prima facie evidence: sufficient at first impression.
ABC News reports that on September 11, 2012, during the terrorist assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the White House contacted YouTube to warn about the adverse effect of showing the notorious “anti-Islamic video” that, according to the Obama administration, triggered the violence that cost the life of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.
What’s news here is that Hillary Clinton and administration apologists have maintained that the notorious video was first blamed for the murders in talking points crafted after the fact by the Central Intelligence Agency. We now know someone in the White House was rolling out the “blame the video” story as the events in Benghazi occurred. Creepily, contact with YouTube was made at 9:11 p.m.
Other sources indicate the video story came out of the State Department as a pre-emptive apology, issued when a protest really did occur at the American Embassy in Egypt, prior to the Benghazi attack.
All of which tightens the focus on Clinton’s enraged reply to Senator Ron Johnson about the bogus video story. Think of it this way: If you were a nasty, spoiled little girl, practiced in deceit and expecting to get away with some really bad behavior, what would you say to an inquisitive adult getting too close to the truth: “Don’t ask me that question,” or, “What difference does it make?”
Naturally, ABC tried to spin the revelation as proof that the administration really, really believed the video was to blame, but we can still thank them for reporting it and, more importantly, the invaluable California Congressman Darrell Issa for digging it out.
The truth will emerge, preferably one hour after Hillary accepts the 2016 nomination.
Last week we noted the clear strategic decision by Democrats to run against the First Amendment in the 2014 elections, and we’ll be regularly revisiting the issue, considering that once the fundamental right to political speech is lost, its restoration may come at a fearsome price.
And every day, it’s more obvious that Democrats in their juvenile ignorance intend to make political speech a commodity to be rationed by a government they intend to control. A blast email last week from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called restriction of First Amendment freedoms “a chance to strip the power away from the Koch brothers and give it back to the people.”
So restricting speech is the antidote to big donors influencing elections; the means to deliver “political equality for all.” As usual when the Left goes to work, the result would be the opposite. Only those who can afford high-priced legal advisers could speak without fear of being ensnared by impenetrable campaign finance laws. Small players would criticize well-financed incumbents at their peril.
But Democrats clearly expect a majority of Americans to embrace the stunningly childish idea that free speech should be allocated on the basis of who we like, and denied to those we envy or resent.
The concept is worse than un-American or even anti-American: It is anti-human. The past half-century’s systematic dumbing-down of civic education at the hands of Democrats and their white-collar union allies has finally enabled the aspiring dictators among us to invite citizens to engineer the undoing of their own liberty, and to imagine the undoing to be a patriotic act.
That a free America would prevail over 20th century totalitarianism abroad was always the likeliest outcome. Repeating the triumph at home in the 21st century is far less certain.
As you’d expect from the Associated Press, its coverage last week of Wisconsin employment utilized every imaginable rhetorical construction to make it appear that adding tens of thousands of new jobs is a big disappointment.
Maybe the AP is still groping for ways to help Democrats believe Mary Burke didn’t really blunder a few months ago when she claimed that job creation prospered when she was Doyle’s Commerce Secretary and foundered after Governor Walker took office.
The real numbers show the opposite, and since the AP opened the door, we’re happy to plow that ground again. The Doyle administration, also famous for tax increases and persistent deficits, presided over a net loss of 133,000 private sector jobs. Since the Walker administration took office in 2011, the net gain has been 101,000 private sector jobs. If we have to endure another six months of Democrats and the media trying to make that look like a problem for Walker, so be it. The thing speaks for itself.
Another thing that speaks for itself is Wisconsin’s unemployment rate: heading downward for a ninth consecutive month and at 5.8 percent, the lowest—let’s call it the best—since October 2008.
All of that may fall short of the 2010 campaign pledge to create an economic environment that would produce 250,000 new jobs over four years, but Burke and other Democrats harping on that number was already tiresome a year ago and it isn’t going to get any fresher between now and November.
The Doyle/Burke/Obama track record since 2008 demonstrates that government’s difficulty in creating jobs is mirrored by its proficiency at destroying them. Democrats would be well-advised to understand that it’s poor salesmanship to quibble about the record of an administration that has things moving in a favorable direction.
Mary Burke has studiously avoided saying she’d attempt to repeal the Act 10 collective bargaining reforms, a caution we attribute to the certainty that her supporters detest the reforms, while Burke herself just might realize they’re crucial to managing state and local finances.
If that’s the case, then her performance last week as a member of the Madison school board identifies a problematic style of leadership based on ducking the risks that come with being a leader. The candidate who won’t say she’d try to repeal Act 10 on behalf of her statewide union constituency voted to help the Madison teacher union continue evading Act 10 by extending pre-Act 10 contracts.
Not that we expect Burke to lose any sleep over it, but this presents her with a logical dilemma: How does she effectively say “drop dead” to Madison property taxpayers, while expecting to receive about 70 percent of their votes, come November?
We don’t know if Burke secretly values Act 10, but it wouldn’t be mysterious if she did. As a member of the Doyle administration, Burke saw firsthand the rolling deficit built into state budgets, reaching $3.6 billion by the time Scott Walker moved into the governor’s office. Walker soon turned the deficit into a hefty surplus, without big government employee layoffs or benefit cuts.
So Burke needs to ask herself if, were she to find herself in the governor’s office next January, would she rather ride the successes of Walker’s good work, or restore the Doyle approach and run for re-election in 2018 with deficits building anew?
It’s clear that she’s willing to help her Madison teachers get away with whatever they can. Whether she’s willing to subject the whole state to that treatment is an open—and urgent—question.
Speaking of proof, had no one thought of it before, last week’s astounding photo of Michelle Obama holding a placard reading “#Bring Back Our Girls” would have tipped off the whole civilized world to the profound non-seriousness of the modern American Left.
We’re told that name translates as, “Non-Islamic education is forbidden,” which seems beside the point given that Boko Haram and like-minded groups prefer women and girls get no education whatsoever.
Since the April 15 raid involved arson and automatic weapons fire, it might be expected to merit the Liberals’ designation as “war against women,” normally reserved for Republicans opposing government-rationed health care.
We’ve long lamented Liberalism’s decline from a recognizable set of policy prescriptions—usually misguided —into a set of attitudes, the display of which is all that ever matters: If you crave an easy way to establish your personal goodness, the reflexive expression of those attitudes will do. Make the display and the work is done.
This diminishes risk in life until the world’s thugs figure things out, as they demonstrably had by the second year of the Clinton administration.
In a serious administration, including some Liberal ones we remember, the First Lady would be nurturing useful civic improvements instead of posting pouty photos of herself, while her husband quietly arranged the extermination of Boko Haram.
Because a Democrat super-majority in the U.S. Senate refused in 2009 to take it up, the United States remains free of the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade system candidate Barack Obama said would cause electricity prices “to necessarily skyrocket,” even as he claimed ownership of the idea.
So we’ve had no national demonstration of what would result from imposing a “carbon tax,” which is what cap-and-trade amounts to. But like they say, the states are the laboratories of democracy, and California, America’s colossal Petri dish, is selflessly conducting the experiment and showing the rest of us what to expect.
Predictably, revenues from California’s single-state cap-and-trade program aren’t being used to reduce greenhouse emissions as the law commands. Last year, Governor Jerry Brown grabbed most of the roughly $1.5 billion to cover general state spending. As new aspects of the program kick in, revenues are projected to increase sharply, building a bigger pot politicians will dip into for pet projects.
Now, State Senate President Darrell Steinberg is eyeing cap-and-trade revenue to pay for California’s laughably over-budget high-speed rail project, and—probably even more in keeping with the fundamental goal—to spread the wealth around.
More than likely, you realized long ago that the global warming scare had little or nothing to do with Earth’s climate, which has been changing constantly since there was Earth. Those with sound instincts grasp the genuine brilliance of political manipulators who saw the opportunity inherent in convincing people they were responsible for something that was happening anyway, and that they could absolve themselves of guilt only by handing over lots of money and control over wide swathes of their lives.
To some, that was obvious from the start. But it’s thoughtful of California to furnish the proof.
Today, every election seems like a showdown with severe long-term consequences for the losing party. So it’s with a sort of horrified fascination that we observe U.S. Senate Democrats adopting a kamikaze strategy for 2014, gambling they can run against the First Amendment and win.
Rumblings about this started when the 2010 Citizens United decision cleared barriers to corporate – and union-funded issue advocacy, but last week Senate Democrat campaign mastermind Chuck Schumer formally proposed amending the Constitution to let the federal government regulate political speech.
Reflect on the enormity of what the New York Democrat hopes to do. There’s a reason why the First Amendment comes first: the Framers didn’t write it out of concern that people’s freedom to argue over a horse race might need special protection. They wrote it to warn off future governments that might otherwise seek to punish their critics. They wrote it precisely to prevent what Schumer seeks.
A Wall Street Journal editorial quoted Schumer saying “The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections.” You’ll be hearing a lot of “dark money” rhetoric from now on, mainly because Democrats who owe many of their election victories to union and far-left interest-group money passing under the radar don’t want competition.
But the real menace in Schumer’s words is his statement that “once and for all” laws no Supreme Court could overturn would regulate political speech. His is not the first political party to assert irrevocable powers. None of them have ended well.
Democrats are betting the farm that Americans won’t recognize an attack on somebody else’s speech as the prelude to an attack on their own. God help these United States if they’re right.
Don’t expect the media to go after Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration, now that White House emails reveal specific planning to deceive the public about the murders of four Americans in Libya.
However much any reporter would love to pursue a story so compelling, they will first weigh the fact that doing their jobs would benefit Conservatives, something most journalists today would regard as an even worse outcome than the terrorist murder of a U.S. ambassador and his security team.
Thanks to Judicial Watch in Freedom of Information Act litigation, it’s verified that the White House coached then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and others to adhere to the lie that the deaths were due to spontaneous outrage over an obscure anti-Islamic video.
It’s also been confirmed that Clinton’s State Department never bothered requesting military assistance for the Americans under siege.
The utter indifference of Obama and Clinton to the safety of Americans and the metastasizing threat to national security encouraged by their behavior may shock many of their supporters, for one reason.
Election-year polling reveals significant numbers of Americans consciously choosing candidates they perceive as caring most about them personally. The Benghazi emails should serve as a long-overdue bucket of ice water in the faces of those millions naïve enough to think Clinton or Obama care about them in the slightest. They care only for protecting their own power and privilege. As for the nation and its people as individuals, we’ve said it before: They don’t give a damn.