U.S. Health Care Is World’s Best, Regardless of What The Left Says

By: Miguel A. Faria | Accuracy in Media

This is the second in a three-part series.

In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the content and tone of the political rhetoric leftist propagandists use to criticize the proposed GOP health care plans vis-à-vis ObamaCare. In part 2, we will describe the propaganda efforts used by progressives to cite dubious statistics to tar and misrepresent the U.S. health care system.

A recent commentary illustrates this propaganda. An article in The British Medical Journal entitled, “Medical error — the third leading cause of death in the U.S,” compares our “broken system” to those of other industrialized nations that purportedly are cheaper and better.

The Journal article cited by the author, in fact, had a significant caveat. “Medical error is not included on death certificates or in rankings of cause of death,” the article stated. The statement about medical error is “only an estimate by two researchers,” and “better reporting” is needed. Indeed, let’s begin with the British themselves.

British officials are so proud of their National Health Service they are willing to concoct figures, not only to praise their system, but also to lie about the fact they ration health care by queues and waiting lists, restrictions to specialists and access to life-saving medical treatments, and even outright denial of medical care to the elderly.

The Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis has pointed out that although the NHS claims, “British patients deaths or serious injuries due to medical errors is 11,000 cases a year,” the reality is quite different. As early as 2009, the House of Commons Health Select Committee reported, “thousands of NHS mistakes are covered up and that a better estimate is that 72,000 patients die each year.”

So much for medical errors in the U.S., which indeed occur, but at least are more objectively and accurately reported. Hidden in the statistics is the fact not only are the poor and disabled properly and promptly treated in the U.S., but the elderly are aggressively treated. In the U.S., potentially life-saving treatments, which carry risks for complications, are administered to patients seeking them in consultation with their physicians. These increase the chances for untoward reactions that are then reported as “medical errors” by medical and eagerly critical public health researchers.

Truth be told, Americans want the best health care money can buy and that prolongs life as long as possible – sometimes to excess. This reached the point that some progressive academicians have even proposed to restrict access to medical care at a certain age — proposals that have not been acceptable to the general population.

When comparing U.S. health care to those of the social democracies of Western Europe and other industrialized nations, proponents of socialized medicine (i.e., single payer system) argue about lower costs and alleged better medical care “in other industrialized nations.” In a recent article, Dr. David Stolinsky succinctly encapsulates the argument:

“We are told that despite all the money we spend on health care, America does not rank with the best in regard to infant and maternal mortality or in life expectancy. In fact, the difference is minimal. Life expectancy at birth for the European Union is 78.67 years, while that for the U.S. is 78.11 years ? only six months shorter.”

Progressive academicians and other proponents of socialized medicine neglect to mention the our mortality statistics also are affected by dramatic increases in fatal drug abuse and epidemic proportions of black-on-black crime.

Dr. Stolinsky asks:  “So what is killing Americans before the age of 60? Americans are. The No.1 cause of death for African-American males from the ages of 15 to 34 is homicide. Faster ambulance response and more trauma centers may reduce this figure somewhat. But clearly, this is not a problem of health care.”

Another problem is illegal immigration and providing necessary care to those coming from across the southern border. Dr. Stolinsky writes: “If women come across the border eight months pregnant, never having seen a doctor, is the fetal and maternal mortality a problem of health care? If pregnant and nursing mothers drink alcohol or use illegal drugs, can doctors solve the problem?”

Europeans are just now experiencing legal and illegal immigration on a large scale. Let’s wait and see new data and projecting statistics from Germany and Italy — that is, if officials are honest and release authentic data.

Although we could have used data from Los Angeles or Chicago, the drug and crime capitals of the United States, Dr. Stolinsky chose to use data from the District of Columbia in Washington, DC, to illustrate the problems of the inner cities. (It should be noted these three metropolitan areas are located in states or districts with the strictest gun control laws in the United States.) After describing the toll that crime, life-threatening sexually transmitted diseases, such as hepatitis and AIDS, as well as drug abuse have taken in the inner cities, Dr. Stolinsky writes:

“If you doubt this, check out the life expectancy and the rates of infant and maternal mortality in the various states. Compare the best figures with those from the District of Columbia, which is similar to other inner cities. For example, the maternal mortality rate for DC is 34.9 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with 2.7 in Massachusetts. The infant mortality rate in DC is 14.1 per 1,000 live births, compared with 4.5 in Utah. The life expectancy in DC is 72.0 years, compared with 80.0 years in Hawaii.”

In short, these statistics provide ample reason for why U.S. mortality rates do not surpass the Europeans.

Admittedly, as evinced by Dr. Stolinsky’s aforementioned statistics, the U.S. has its share of social problems because of our generosity in bestowing benefits, lenient immigration policy and permissive criminal justice system. But those are not problems with our medical care system.

If the U.S. health care system is so “broken,” as claimed by leftist propagandists, why do so many foreign dignitaries and private citizens still come to the U.S. seeking medical treatment? Why do Canadians, who have a fully socialized health care system, go south of the border to receive medical care in the U.S.? Why are an astounding 60 percent of Nobel Prizes in Medicine or Physiology won by American medical scientists? Why are cancer survival rates in the U.S. so much higher than in the rest of the world? Obviously, these questions answer themselves.

Certainly, there are problems in the U.S. health care system — for example, medical care delivery and prescription drugs are too expensive. The underlying cause of the problem is government involvement in health care. In a subsequent column, we will discuss how the free market has been perverted by government interference and further contravene other false claims promulgated by proponents of socialized medicine.


Miguel A. Faria, M.D. is a retired clinical professor of neurosurgery and long time medical editor. He is the author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995); Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997); and Cuba in Revolution — Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). His website is http://www.haciendapub.com.


Politico Writer’s Beef with Trump: He’s Too Fat to be President. Seriously…

By: Jon Street | Accuracy in Media

Liberal television host and author Touré Neblett seized on a Politico article published Tuesday. The 2,500-word Politico article focused not on anything policy related, but instead centered entirely around President Donald Trump’s weight.

“Politico says Trumpy is the least athletic president in decades which is a nice & polite way of saying he’s a fat slob like Jabba the Hut,” Neblett tweeted Wednesday.

Yes, you read that right. Of all the issues facing the country right now, Ben Strauss, the author of the piece, elected to weigh in on Trump’s physical fitness to be president. What’s worse, Neblett used the story to basically fat shame the president, which liberals usually oppose.

The Left’s obsession with Trump’s “fitness” is nothing new, but usually it is his mental capability to carry out his constitutional duties that gets called into question.  In this particular Politico article, Strauss takes the mental fitness argument a step further.

“Is the President fit?” Strauss asked in the first part of the Politico headline. He doesn’t seek an objective answer. Instead, in the next sentence, Strauss unilaterally declares Trump as the “least athletic president in generations.” Straus goes on to explain “why it matters” — or at least why Strauss thinks it matters.

Strauss writes: “In the modern history of American presidents, no occupant of the Oval Office has evinced less interest in his own health. He does not smoke or drink, but his fast-food, red meat-heavy diet, his aversion to exercise and a tendency to gorge on television for hours at a time put him at odds with his predecessors.”

Forget for just a second that former President Barack Obama smoked cigarettes for the better part of his first term in office, despite former First Lady Michelle Obama constantly railing against the damaging effects that smoking can have on one’s body. Strauss instead went on to shame the octogenarian president for looking and acting like the majority of senior Americans.

“By any measure, America’s president is overweight, and medical experts say it could be affecting his health and his job,” Strauss wrote. Strauss doesn’t mention Trump is the oldest man ever to assume the nation’s highest office.

Strauss continued by pointing out how Trump “deviated” from his prepared remarks during a state visit to Saudi Arabia, which the White House said was because he was “exhausted.” Given his age and the timing and pace of the trip, this seems fair.

But not for Strauss, who insisted the White House official’s response was “not an excuse the Bull Moose would have made,” referring to former President Theodore Roosevelt, who was an avid outdoorsman.”Teddy Roosevelt went on legendary ‘rough, cross-country walks’ in D.C.’s Rock Creek Park and was once punched in the eye by a sparring partner half his age,” Strauss wrote. “John F. Kennedy projected an image of youthful vitality even as he secretly took painkillers for his bad back and other ailments”

“Gerald Ford was lampooned as a clumsy oaf on ‘Saturday Night Live,’ but he was a champion football player in college. George W. Bush, an avid mountain biker, ran 7-minute miles on his regular 5k workouts,” Strauss wrote. “Even Bill Clinton lumbered along on regular jogs to atone for his Big Mac habit.”

Strauss did acknowledge that Trump often hits the links at his golf properties, but he criticized the president for riding a golf cart. Never mind the security advantages of riding, as opposed to walking.

It also should be noted the criticism of Trump’s fitness habits comes from the same people who criticize him for golfing too much. Regardless of what one may say about the frequency of Trump’s golf outings, his swing is impressive for someone who is 71 years old.

Contrast that with the swing of Obama, who is two decades younger and also, in this clip, appears to be riding a card just as Trump does. Obama’s golf swing.

Like Republicans in general, the president is in a no-win situation. The media will grasp at anything to portray Trump as unfit to be president.

Criticizing a 71-year-old man who keeps his schedule for not being physically active and trying to fat-shame him because he likes hamburgers is petty, unconstructive and sadly indicative of a left wing media that still cannot accept that this particular 71-year-old came out of nowhere, thumbed his nose at conventional Washington and became the leader of the free world.

America has bigger, more important issues to worry about than the president’s weight. The sooner Strauss and others just accept that Trump was elected president, the quicker we can address the real challenges.


State Department Says No One Cares Anymore About Hillary’s Stupid Emails

By: Brian McNicoll | Accuracy in Media

Nate Silver undertook an interesting what-if project this week with a story on what would things be like if Hillary Clinton had been elected president.

Merrick Garland is on the Supreme Court, and Neil Gorsuch is not. Brian Fallon is the press secretary, and Sean Spicer is not. It is Hillary Clinton under investigation for ties to Russia, and not Donald Trump. Huma Abedin is the White House chief of staff.

Hillary feuds with the press. Her approval numbers at the six-month mark are lower than any president since the 1930s. She is more a caretaker than an implementer of bold new ideas. Congress went Republican, so her agenda goes nowhere. Most of what could be done through executive action was done by Barack Obama. And the press continues to hound her to show progress on something … anything.

Her answer, frustrating to her as well as the American people, is that we haven’t made major mistakes. We haven’t pulled out of the Paris climate accords or the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and our foreign policy “has largely been a continuation of Barack Obama’s.”

Silver says Clinton struck a deal with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell – he would get Garland confirmed, and she would allow him input on cabinet officials. This is how we got Joe Lieberman as Attorney General and Ryan Zinke as Secretary of the Interior.

It’s an interesting thought exercise, but some of it doesn’t ring true. Silver swallows whole the liberal theory that Trump would be disruptive and refuse to accept electoral results. In truth, he would be back to running his businesses and too busy to care within days.

Silver says Trump’s recalcitrance would contribute to a “national skepticism about Clinton.” There’s been a national skepticism about Hillary Clinton for 30 years.

And he says Republicans would be investigating Hillary’s email problems and considering articles of impeachment this very day if she had been elected. It’s hard to say if Republicans in Congress would be investigating the emails at this point if Hillary had won. But it’s not hard to say – because it is unarguably true – that we are not investigating her emails now.

A federal court has ordered the State Department to turn over 100,000 emails as part of the settlement of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. But according to Circa, the State Department argued at a hearing Thursday that it could not process the 100,000 emails because of a lack of manpower caused by a “hiring freeze” and said it switched to other projects because of the public’s lack of interest in the subject.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, the group that filed the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, said some of these emails are among those Clinton “failed to disclose” to the government when she served as secretary of state.

Last week, Judicial Watch released 448 pages of State Department documents from Abedin that it said showed preferential treatment to major donors to the Clinton Foundation and various campaigns. These included six email exchanges totaling 439 emails that Clinton had not turned over to the State Department previously. This further puts the lie to her statement that as far as she knew, she had turned over all her emails to the State Department.

The FBI gave the State Department a disk with 7,000 new emails on it that belong to Abedin and were taken from the laptop she shared with her husband, convicted child molester Anthony Weiner. But even those 7,000 can’t be released because, according to Fitton, State Department and Justice Department lawyers are “claiming they have to appraise them, whether they are personal or government, and then sift through what can be shared publicly.”

The court ordered the State Department to process documents at the rate of 500 pages per month, which means it will take until 2020 for most of the information to become public, Fitton said.

Trump has said repeatedly – he tweetstormed on this as recently as a month ago – that the Justice Department should get her emails and make them public. But his own Justice Department attorneys essentially conceded they were slow-rolling the project because of “diminished public interest.”

One insider told Circa, “There are still holdovers within the departments that don’t want to see these emails released, so slow-rolling these requests makes perfect sense. If the president wants these emails released, then he will have to demand that the agencies abide.”

Not for nothing does Silver speculate that upwards of 40 percent of voters – and more than 70 percent of Republicans – would want Hillary impeached given the circumstances. There is widespread distrust of her, her poll numbers are worse than Trump’s, and even she has admitted the trust issues created by the email scandals hurt her at the polls.

But in the view of the State Department, knowing what the former secretary of state was doing elsewhere in the world to shore up her chances of being elected here – what promises were made, what funds collected, etc. – is not of sufficient public interest to invest a few resources and finish the job?

Talk about your alternative universes.


Weekly Featured Profile – Dwight Welch


Dwight Welch, is the Pastor at United Church of Norman, UCC, Oklahoma and is also an Adjunct Professor at Oklahoma City Community College.

Welch studied Theology at Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis as a MDiv. student with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). He also serves as a student pastor at First Christian in Sheridan, Indiana and did graduate work in philosophy while serving as a campus minister at University Christian Ministries at Southern Illinois University.

Dwight Welch is also a committed Marxist with a “progressive theological reflection on the relationship of God and the good in life.”

While studying in Indiana, Welch attended the Socialist Party USA National Convention, held at the Gateway Hilton, St. Louis, Missouri, October 19-21, 2007.

In 2009, Dwight Welch served as Secretary to the Central Indiana Democratic Socialists of America.

Today Dwight Welch is an active member of the newly founded Oklahoma City Democratic Socialists.

(Dwight Welch|more…)


No, Media … 26 Million People Won’t Die if Obamacare is Repealed

By: Miguel A. Faria | Accuracy in Media

First of a three-part series.

Of a fallen tree all make kindling, says the old proverb. And like most refrains, it conveys an element of truth.

The fact that Republicans are having difficulty agreeing on a winning alternative plan to ObamaCare makes both the Senate and House proposals looming targets for critics.

The Left’s ultimate goal is to dismantle the American health care system and turn it into an instrument for people control — the government as single payer, in other words, fully socialized medicine “as in all other industrialized nations.”

It has not been unsuccessful in this arena. Aided by the mainstream media, the debate keeps shifting leftward, and Republicans, despite majorities in both houses of Congress, do not seem to have a winning strategy.

Pundits and propagandists have spread more than the fair share of half-truths in their efforts to lend support to Democrats.

A recent writer, for example, lamented, “Millions of Americans who were able to purchase insurance since ObamaCare was enacted would lose coverage if either plan [the Senate or the House version] became law, and most of the savings from the tax cuts in their plans would be reaped by those with higher incomes.”

The first part of the statement is questionable and disingenuous. The vast majority, about 18 million of the estimated 20 million in question, had obtained health insurance only because they had been compelled to do so or pay the penalty imposed by ObamaCare for not having insurance. The rest have subsidized coverage paid by others saddled with higher premiums.

The second part of the statement is even more disingenuous because those “reaping the savings” are merely the ones being allowed to save some of their own money, instead of subsidizing others. The GOP plans revoke these impositions and bring more freedom rather than wealth redistribution.

But the verbiage in the writer’s statement is typical Democrat rhetoric pushing the debate towards socialism rather than freedom. In another article in the same newspaper, we read, “Reductions in spending are needed to pay for GOP proposed tax cuts.”

How is that for turning ideas upon their heads and perverting their meanings? In liberal mantra, reduction of wasteful spending and returning money to those who earned it is considered the government having to “pay” for the tax cuts. Whose money is it to begin with?

By sleight of progressive authoritarian hand and the naked force of sophistry over reason, suddenly, one’s money becomes the government’s, and those who want to keep their hard-earned money are accused of “reaping the savings” of tax cuts. And when the government returns their money, they call it “paying for tax cuts!”

Envy and class warfare are instigated to ignite passion with this rhetoric. Invariably, the liberal mantra elaborates that those “reaping the benefits” of tax cuts or those for whom the government “slashes benefits to the needy to pay for the tax cuts” are the wealthy.

The reality is different: It is the at least 53 percent of middle-class Americans who most heavily carry the load of taxation who would “reap the benefits” of less taxation and wasteful government spending. The super rich are too few to pull the wagon by themselves.

The 26 million presently uninsured Americans are misrepresented by the liberal media as being the most needy and “vulnerable,” and the poorest of Americans who still do not have access to medical care in the U.S. This of course is not true.

Our senior citizens are covered by the federal Medicare program, and the poorest Americans are covered by state-run Medicaid programs. And the truth is that eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in some of those programs would go a long way to better cover even more of those in need.

But the liberal media, even when wanting to appear objective, is not only biased but demands that the debate be limited to points that fit its agenda. For example, as we have seen, it refuses to consider costs and the consequences of wealth redistribution in expanding coverage. And its arguments soon degenerate to passionate rhetoric to push its pre-planned agenda.

The liberal media also avoids reporting human-interest stories of waste, fraud and abuse and shuns presenting sober and responsible analyses of projected costs. It steers clear of stories on the burden those social and health programs impose on the middle class who pay for them or the burden on businesses that must pay the exorbitant insurance premiums for their workers.

Consider the verbiage of yet another unsigned editorial in my local newspaper, the Macon (Ga.) Telegraph. (July 2):

“Though it [the Senate version of the GOP plan] would only throw 22 million people out of the health insurance door — it would save the government, by cutting Medicaid $772 billion over 10 years and it would eliminate $408 billion in subsidies for low-income people, those captured by opioids, pregnant mothers, the disabled and the most vulnerable in our society…. They have yet to put a human face on the issue.”

How is that for advocacy journalism? But despite the alleged good intentions of looking out for the vulnerable and low-income people, these entitlement programs are not without serious unintended and harmful consequences. For example, numerous studies have shown that many Americans in their prime of life and able to work are dropping out of the labor force because of the expansion of the welfare state. They simply prefer to not work and collect benefits. Others malinger, faking illnesses and injuries, to obtain fraudulent disability.

One can search the vast literature on the subject (avoided by the media) or just simply watch Judge Judy on TV to ascertain the reality of the statement. In both cases the government-dependent population continues to increase, and those sharing the burden have a heavier and heavier wagon to pull.

Medicaid spending has increased dramatically both under the administrations of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. In 2000, Medicaid spending was $209 billion. By 2016, it had more than doubled to $575 billion. Americans with the lowest incomes and the “disabled” are not falling through the cracks as claimed. The deficit accumulated from this program alone is in the trillions of dollars.

As stated earlier, some, if not most of the 26 million without coverage today are members of the middle class, not eligible for either program and uninsured by choice. These Americans make a conscious choice to spend their money elsewhere because they believe they are healthy and they don’t want to subsidize others, particularly those with pre-existing medical conditions, through a government-approved insurance cartel.

Wise decision or not, under ObamaCare, these Americans chose to pay the penalty for not having insurance. People look after their self-interest, and in a free society, they should be allowed to do so, rather than being forced to participate in wealth redistribution schemes dreamed up by pandering politicians or conceived by others to forge presidential legacies.

Despite the impression created by the progressive-liberal media and even Hollywood celebrities, the health care problem is more about waging partisan politics and inciting class warfare by the Democrats and about furthering government control over individual Americans than it is about “people dying in the streets for lack of medical care” — another hyperbolic mendacity.

We already have mentioned Medicare and Medicaid. Veterans are covered by the Veterans Administration hospital system. True, many people complain about the VA system’s inefficiencies and waiting lists, but that is exactly what they will get with the single-payer system of socialized medicine that liberals, behind their partisan politics, are striving to implement through the back door.

Truth be told, no one is being left behind. And as falsely claimed, no one is dying in the streets of America because of lack of access to medical care. That is an outright lie, whether it is implied or stated by a Democrat or Republican president. By federal law, anyone who seeks medical care at an American hospital has to be treated regardless of ability to pay.

Just by acknowledging this fact and perhaps making an effort to decrease its bias and tone down its rhetoric, the liberal mainstream media could go a long way to improve the quality of the debate — and regain a portion of its damaged credibility.


Miguel A. Faria, M.D. is a retired clinical professor of neurosurgery and long time medical editor. He is the author of “Vandals at the Gates of Medicine”; “Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine”; and “Cuba in Revolution — Escape From a Lost Paradise.” His website is http://www.haciendapub.com.


The Walmart Guy vs Anti-Capitalism Millennials

By: Lloyd Marcus

Though we have never met, I smiled recently seeing my favorite Walmart employee. For over ten years, I witnessed him gathering shopping carts in the parking lot. He is a white millennial who only has the use of one arm, walks with a severe limp and appears slightly mentally challenged. I once saw him leaving work driving a new looking compact car. My wife Mary prepared his taxes when she worked for a tax preparation company. I thought, “Hey, this brother has got it goin’ on — doin’ his thing.”

The Walmart guy could easily qualify for disability; sit home on his butt allowing taxpayers to take care of him. Far too many able-bodied millennials feel entitled, believing government should provide them free everything.

The Walmart guy’s work-ethic, self-reliance and pride in earning his own way is truly refreshing. The Obama Administration practically begged Americans, even non-citizens http://bit.ly/1ixsqOm, to get on food stamps and to apply for as many government freebies as possible. This addicts voters to government handouts and keeps them voting for their Democrat dealers. Disability claims skyrocketed under Obama. http://bit.ly/1ts1LYs

Disturbingly, polls say a majority of millennials reject Capitalism. http://wapo.st/2mINyo7 They believe Socialism is fair and compassionate and Capitalism is selfish and cruel. This explains “yutes” hero worship of socialist/Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Millennials love Sanders’ promise to take the hard earned wealth of achievers to redistribute to lazy pot-smoking losers. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Socialism always ends up spreading mediocrity and misery equally among the masses while the rulers live high on the hog. Have you noticed that Hollywood Leftists and socialist politicians want government to force us to drive tiny tin-can cars, surrender our guns and lower our carbon footprint? Meanwhile, they travel in gas-guzzling limos and private jets with armed guards.

Capitalism gives everyone a shot at achieving their American dream. I will slap the next fellow black person who whines to me about how whitey has stacked the deck again us. Capitalism birthed America’s first female millionaire, a black woman born in 1867. Madam C. J. Walker was an entrepreneur, philanthropist and a political and social activist. http://bit.ly/2byUBOr Socialism would have enslaved Madam Walker to the government system, giving her just enough free stuff to get by. Okay, I promise not to slap anyone.

It was depressing hearing it reported that a large number of Americans support taxing income over a million dollars at 100%. First of all, confiscating that money would generate around $616 billion, which only covers a third of our annual deficit. http://bit.ly/2tGS3CR

But what is most troubling is the disgusting class envy loser mindset of those who believe it is right for government to take people’s hard earned money. They do not realize that such financial tyranny would kill jobs and the incentive to be all one can be. How dare government place limits on success. Such thinking is un-American, counter to our God-inspired founding.

We allowed Leftists’ silent-coup-takeover of public education decades ago. Consequently, Leftists have produced an army of stealth Leftist sleeper-cell operatives against their parents. Remember when Leftists instructed kids to steal their parent’s guns and turn them in to their teaches? http://bit.ly/2vgZ3bj Remember Michele Obama instructing students to report politically incorrect speech at the dinner table? http://bit.ly/1qL62Dz

Outrageously, white students are taught beginning in kindergarten that they were born racist. http://dailym.ai/29AwJVZ In essence, white students are taught to feel ashamed and hate themselves for their unfair white privilege. The Walmart guy is on Leftists’ excrement list simply for being a working class white male. http://bit.ly/2tfHN58 It angers me envisioning Leftist bullies getting into the grill of my Walmart guy, scolding him about his evil white privilege.

Students support black college student’s demand for free tuition and housing. http://fxn.ws/2kPQEWP

Black students also expect academic and behavioral standards lowered for them. I’m a 68 year-old black man. I would be highly offended having standards lowered for me. Millennials quickly embrace Leftists twisting everything into evidence of unfairness and white American racism.

Years ago, a white friend shared that her son came home from middle-school in tears about how white men abused everyone; blacks, women, native Americans and so on. Today her son is an America hating Communist who still believes European white men are the greatest source of evil in the world.

Folks, we must turn this mess around regarding Leftists’ indoctrination of our kids. Trump appointing Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education is a major step in the right direction. DeVos favors restoring power back to parents regarding the education of their children.

Oh, we’re out of milk. I’m confident I will see my Walmart guy diligently working.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Author: “Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America.”
Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist


Communiqués From The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

By: Trevor Loudon | New Zeal

Communiqués From The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is a great book.

When does the soul enter the human body? At birth? At conception? This is the only important question in the abortion debate.

Are human beings essentially spiritual in nature, as most, but not all, conservatives believe?

Or are humans (forget the “being” part) merely a collections of cells, as most, but not all socialists believe?

If you believe, as does Florida author Thomas C. Wigand, that man is spiritual in nature and that the soul enters the body at conception, then abortion is clearly wrong. Tom Wigand makes the case that few if any conservatives are making. That if man is spiritual in nature and that spirit enters the body the moment cells start replicating, then abortion must be immoral. Because at the moment of conception, we are no longer dealing with mere cells, part of a woman’s body, to be disposed of like hair or fingernail clippings, but a new autonomous spiritual being. Any anti-abortion argument that does not address the true nature of human life, will make no real headway.

Tom Wigand has written a great book. A book that deserves a lot more attention. Communiqués From The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is available on Amazon and you should go there now and buy it. Also buy a copy for someone you know who can be swayed. A liberal niece, who has had a little too much indoctrination in her sociology classes. The “leaning conservative” friend, who needs a lot more philosophical ammunition to stiffen his spine, to make him a valuable soldier for our movement.

Tom Wigand’s Communiqués  cover so much ground. Everything from Alinskyism to abortion. “Crony capitalism” to communism. George Washington to George Soros. From the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution they bequeathed to us, to the connivers, cowards and traitors of both parties seeking to undermine it. Tom’s opus examines the forces working to bring America down. He gives much needed encouragement to those seeking to uplift this great nation and to restore the Constitution that is the “soul” of this nation. “Communiques” examines what is wrong with America and clearly and succinctly explains how to fix it.

Tom Wigand is a very astute political analyst, a constitutional scholar, an entertaining and witty writer, a philosopher and a patriot. Tom is what they used to call a “Renaissance man” –  a student of life, well grounded and versed in all that makes us Western. A student of politics, philosophy, science, culture and Theology.

This all shows through in the depth of his writing.

If you’re a conservative who loves good writing and a great argument, a searcher for deeper philosophical grounding, a patriot who wants to better your country, or even a socialist who wants to understand the conservative worldview, buy this book today.

I personally recommend it.


A Mixed Market

By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities

At a casual glance, it appears most market participants have finally capitulated believing momentum based trading utilizing technology and capitalization is the one and only investment strategy, further capitulating believing “crowded trades” will become even more crowded. As stated the other day, the new definition of risk is as follows…if it is going up, it is not risky and if it is going down, it is risky.

As with all “fail safe” trading strategies, this one too shall fail, but the question is when and how much further will this trade go.

Commenting about yesterday’s market action, equities declined nominally following the expansion of the probe into President Trump’s business dealings, thus suggesting the inquiries into the administration are not market sensitive. Treasuries rallied on the headlines only to give up the vast majority of their gains by days’ end.

As stated above, the markets are completely driven by headlines and momentum. The financial system has great liquidity because of Fed policy, liquidity that has not gravitated to the real economy, but only to the largest capitalized names and the Treasury market.

At some juncture, the environment will change. Typically, a transition point occurs when all are convinced the current paradigm will remain forever.

What will happen today?

Last night, the foreign markets were down. London was down 0.03%, Paris was down 0.62% and Frankfurt was down 0.83%. China was down 0.21%, Japan was down 0.22% and Hang Sang was down 0.13%.

The Dow should open flat ahead of next week’s FOMC meeting and deluge of earnings. The 10-year is up 4/32 to yield 2.25%.


Pence is Right: Single-Payer Could Be The Death of Charlie Gard

By: Brian McNicoll | Accuracy in Media

Robert Klitzman, director of a masters program in bioethics at Columbia University, says Mike Pence’s comments on Charlie Gard are “alarming” because they seek to “undermine single-payer health systems.”

Pence “politicized a tragic story,” Klitzman said, when the vice president told Rush Limbaugh “the American people ought to reflect on the fact that for all the talk on the left about single payer, that’s where it takes us.”

Gard is the 11-month-old British boy suffering from Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome, a rare disease that would leave him severely and permanently cognitively disabled. His parents want to take him from a hospital in the UK to the United States for experimental treatments that experts say give him a 10 percent chance of survival.

Health officials in the UK have resisted this, saying his quality of life is unlikely ever to reach an acceptable level, and he should be put out of his misery, have his feeding tubes removed and be allowed to die.

Klitzman, author of a book entitled, “The Ethics Police? The Struggle to Make Human Research Safe,” doesn’t make an ethical argument. He says he thinks Charlie Gard’s parents should have the choice of bringing him to the U.S.

He takes issue with Pence’s linking of this controversy to single-payer. “Gard’s legal battles – and his family’s losses thus far – reflect the goals of the British and European court systems to prevent an infant from needless suffering, and not the costs or systems of care,” Klitzman writes. “Pence is suggesting the British judges are making their decisions because they are rationing health care. That is simply not the case.”

Of course, it is the case.

The British law that governs the National Health Service – the UK’s single-payer system – invests in the courts the responsibility of determining whether care can be withheld. Why else would it do this but to ensure money is not “wasted” on patients who have no hope of recovery?

There is no cost component to this particular decision. Gard’s story went viral weeks ago, and the money for the trip and treatment long since has been raised through crowd funding. But the system cannot make exceptions for Charlie Gard. Its decisions on who has hope of recovery, what constitutes recovery and reasonable hope are invested in courts whose decisions are driven – in part and probably in most – by cost.

Charlie Gard’s parents have long since determined they are willing to spend the time, money and patience to raise a child with diminished mental state. They have friends from all over the world now who would be willing to help. They have determined his life is worthwhile as is.

Carter Snead, director of the Center for Ethics and Culture and professor of law at Notre Dame, explained the problem thusly in a piece for CNN that sought to explain the Pope’s involvement:

“Pope Francis and Charlie’s parents seek to care for and comfort the patient the child now is, despite his perhaps permanently diminished state. Medical interventions that comfort or improve Charlie’s condition are seen as beneficial, even if they cannot restore his brain function to the preferred level.

“By contrast, the UK government and the hospital do not recognize any measure as beneficial that fails to give Charlie their idealized standard of cognitive function. Since they seem convinced that nothing can restore such functioning, the only ‘beneficial’ intervention is to terminate Charlie’s life-sustaining measures and for him to die.”

Klitzman compared the case to Terri Schiavo. In 1990, Schiavo, then in her late 20s, had a heart attack and suffered severe brain damage. Her parents were willing and able to keep her alive, but her husband claimed she had said she did not want to live on a feeding tube. He wanted to marry another woman but could not without resolving her situation.

Then-Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida signed “Terri’s law,” which ordered her feeding tube reinserted, but a court overturned the law. President Bush then signed a bill that transferred jurisdiction of her case to the federal government, but it too was overturned.

Imagine if you were Charlie Gard or Terri Schiavo. You are alive. You are feeling and experiencing things – Schiavo responded to verbal prompts – but you cannot express yourself.

Do you want the people who talk for you to be concerned about the costs or what your quality of life might be? Do you want others – whose charge is to save money – to judge what is comfortable enough for you to make life worthwhile?

Because that’s what single payer offers. It means decisions about life and death come down to costs. And even if private payers step up, once the system is in place, it must evaluate all such decisions on the same basis.

So who should speak on your behalf? Your loved ones who want what’s best for you? Or bean counters from the central office?


No, Three Republican Senators Did Not Come Out Against Obamacare Repeal Because Of Sexism

By: Brian McNicoll | Accuracy in Media

On the left, it’s been one big high-five in recent days.

Obamacare is failing. Many states are down to one insurer, and some soon may have none. Premiums are increasing at double-digit rates. Enforcement mechanisms have been abandoned, meaning the death spiral is fully operational and the system will fail in time no matter what.

But Republicans in the Senate have failed to get a measure to repeal and replace Obamacare over the finish line. The cast of characters and the grounds for opposition have changed throughout the process, but the result has been the same every time – close, but no cigar.

After his final legislative effort fell apart, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, said he would bring legislation to the floor that would repeal Obamacare in two years but did not lay out a replacement.

Three Republicans – all viewed as moderates, all from states with large and struggling rural populations, all with reasons to be wary of sudden cuts to services – voted against it.

Only little was said about how these factors merged to make those three particular senators the first to oppose the measure. The leftist media, which sees things only through its sexist, racist, misogynist filter, drew another similarity among the three senators – they’re all women.

“Republicans thought nothing of drafting their health care repeal plan with zero input from women, including those in their own party,” blared a story on the Shareblue website that celebrated the defections of Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Shelley Moore Capito, R-WVa., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. “Now those women are having their say, and it’s a simple one: ‘No.’”

Good of the country and past voting records of those senators notwithstanding, if we don’t have sufficient women in the room when legislation is developed, that legislation is ipso facto bad and must be rejected. And thank goodness the rotting corpse that is Obamacare remains in place with no immediate prospect of relief from the party that has promised for seven years to rid us of this disaster. Because, hey, women’s rights.

But if you can make your way past the rampant sexism and misogyny of the lead of the story, we reach some genuine confusion over the proper role of government.

“Someone ought to tell Trump that part of being president is, in fact, “owning it” when your own party decides to tear down a crucial element of the fabric of our society,” Alison Parker, who bills herself as a reproductive rights and LGBTQ activist, states.

Never mind that the crucial element is a colossal failure, that it has “served” fewer than a half-million Americans but locked hundreds of millions more into a contract to pay for state Medicaid expansion that is simply unaffordable.

To Vice-President Pence’s statement that it is time for Congress to “do their job,’ Parker treats us to a brief lecture on how Pence and Trump are “sorely mistaken about what it means for the government to “do their job.”

“The job of the government – of the president, vice president, and Congress – is to serve the people, to protect and provide for them, and to pass laws that improve their lives,” Parker writes. “Repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with nothing would harm millions of lives.”

Obviously, Alison Parker has spent more time advocating for reproductive rights and LGBTQ “rights” than studying the Constitution. Because it is not government’s job to “provide” for the people. The people, in a free society, are supposed to provide for themselves.

It is not to “pass laws that improve their lives.” First of all, Parker’s idea of what would improve our lives and those of most Americans probably differ rather substantially. The reason Republican inaction on repeal of Obamacare is so puzzling is because there are so few arguments remaining to keep it.

And secondly, the role of government is to protect the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It has no charge to guarantee happiness or success or to pass laws that “provide” for the people or “improve their lives.”

Finally, Parker tells us McConnell, Trump and Pence “may not care” about all those ruined lives that would result from Obamacare repeal.

“But thankfully, the women in their party who were not invited to the drafting sessions do care, and they’re putting that concern, and the country, over party.”

That’s not what any of the three senators said. All laid out comprehensive answers that differed significantly. But none of them mentioned sexism. None of them said they voted against it because women were not in the room.

Alison Parker made that part up out of whole cloth. Because that’s how liberals see the world and that’s how they choose to respond.