They are the tiniest minority in America, numbering 585. Most people don't know one. And yet they are shamelessly pilloried by politicians. They blame this group for every calamity in America from economic inequality to climate change. Unlike other minorities, no one rises to their defense.
This diminutive faction is the nation's billionaires. The class has a total net worth of $2.399 trillion. The exclusive club includes some members as young as 32 and two as old as 88. Amazon chief Jeff Bezos tops the elite list with total wealth of $112 billion. Bill Gates is distant second at $90 billion.
Once upon a time, it was the American dream to become successful and prosperous. Average citizens looked in admiration upon self-made millionaires who grew up with little and rose to stirring heights of capitalism. Not any more. Today billionaires are villains to be mercilessly disparaged.
Politicians have cast the wealthy as the new boogieman. Self-described socialist Bernie Sanders has made attacking the "billionaire class" a cornerstone of his 2020 presidential run. To listen to Sanders on the campaign trail, billionaires should be shackled in a stockade on the public square.
"We live in a nation owned and controlled by a small number of multi-billionaires whose greed, incredible greed, insatiable greed, is having an unbelievably negative impact of the fabric of the entire country," Sanders ranted in an interview. Sanders must be jealous that he is only a millionaire.
To underscore his disgust, Sanders took the social media to post the following Tweet: "How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need? Give us a break. You can't have it all." Spoken like a man who owns three homes with his spouse Jane.
Another Democratic Party presidential contender Elizabeth Warren has made deriding the wealthy a staple of her stump speech. "America's middle class is under attack," she grumbles. "How did we get here? Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie."
To punish the rich, Warren has proposed levying a 2 percent additional tax on families with total assets of more than $50 billion and three percent on those with wealth that exceeds $1 billion. These duties would be in addition to her plan to hike taxes on the income of the richest Americans.
The future for billionaires looks gloomy with political newcomers such as New York's Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez bursting on the scene with even more draconian tax plans. The 29-year-old politician has floated the idea of a 70 percent marginal top rate on incomes above $10 million.
That sounds more like confiscation than taxation. Not surprising coming from a self-avowed Democratic Socialist. Only one presidential candidate seems to be bucking the trend of bashing billionaires. Perhaps, that's because he is one: former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz.
"I'm self-made," Schultz declared when he was deplored for self-funding his campaign. "I grew up in the project in Brooklyn, New York. I thought that was the American dream, the aspiration of America." Polling from Pew Research suggests Schultz may be out of touch with today's generation.
In a nationwide survey in 2017, Pew found the dream for most Americans is "freedom of choice on how to live." Having a "good family life" ranks second. Third is "a comfortable retirement." At the bottom of the list is "wealth." However, prosperity makes the first three easier to achieve.
Still that doesn't explain the current visceral hatred toward the wealthy. Nothing stirs up a crowd, especially of young people, like a verbal spanking of the rich. Without delving into group psychoanalysis, the explanation might be envy and resentment of those with money. Who knows?
Even politicians are conflicted. On the one hand they thrash the mega-rich, but use the other hand to take millions in contributions from billionaires, their surrogates and political shell organizations. Would a sane person hand over money for the privilege of being verbally sprayed by a skunk?
Take Bernie Sanders as an example of this dichotomy. Sanders made a big show out of the fact his 2016 campaign was largely funded by small donations under $200. However, OpenSecrets reveals that his largest donors were Alphabet, Inc. (Google), Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Boeing and IBM.
The CEO's of each one of those organizations are either multi-millionaires or billionaires. Apparently, they enjoy being lambasted as filthy rich jerks. These heads of mammoth corporations are either daffy or sadistic. Makes you wonder about their motive for funding rhetorical flagellation.
In the current political climate, counsel your children and grandchildren to strive to be middle class. Politicians pander to this economic group. No one can define the middle class any more, but that matters little. Middle class is the safe haven from politicians' verbal hostilities.
There is only one problem with having every American pursuing middle economic nirvana. Who will pay for all those grand schemes, such as Medicare For All and the Green Deal, unless the nation continues to churn out more billionaires? Now that's a conundrum for Sanders, et al. to ponder.
Monday, March 11, 2019
Monday, March 4, 2019
The Senator, The Spy and The Rich Investor
It sounds like a script poached from a spy movie. A Chinese agent hiding in plain sight, worms his way as an employee of a high-ranking senator with access to some of America's most sensitive secrets. For almost 20 years, the spy reports to intelligence officials embedded in China's consulate.
The senator isn't just another faceless member of the chamber. This individual once chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee and now sits on the subcommittee for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Both groups receive briefings from intelligence agencies and review classified intel.
Five years ago, the FBI approached the senator to apprise her that a staffer was being investigated for spying for the Chinese. The senator's employee had never been vetted for a security clearance. Warned by the FBI, the senator quietly forced the traitorous staffer to retire in 2013.
This account is not a Hollywood film. California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein was duped by a Chinese espionage agent whose handlers operated in San Francisco. In what appears suspiciously like a cover up, the spy was never charged, saving Feinstein the embarrassment of a messy trial.
It may be purely coincidental but the Senate Intelligence Committee oversees certain FBI investigations into foreign activities. It is the same committee Feinstein once chaired. The FBI director at the time was none other than James Comey.
Did the FBI decide it did not want to make an enemy of a powerful senator who might be chair again? The questions do not end there.
How could a U.S. senator never suspect a Chinese mole was operating in her organization for two decades? Why did the FBI drop its probe even after they suspected the spy was sharing intel with the Chinese? How was Feinstein able to shield her entire office staff from further investigation?
Americans, especially Californians, deserve answers. Apparently, Feinstein considers the matter closed. The FBI's official conclusion is the spy didn't divulge "anything of substance." But there has been no public report issued by the agency. Not even Feinstein's staff knew a probe was going on.
A couple of articles appeared in San Francisco about the episode but the mainstream media ignored it. Then Politico ran a story online on July 27, 2018, recounting the Chinese recruitment of a member of the senator's staff. That compelled Feinstein to issue a formal statement on August 6.
In her brief written response, Feinstein said, "The FBI reviewed the matter, shared their concerns with me and the employee immediately left my office." She left unsaid that the staffer did not depart voluntarily but that the spy was "retired" by the senator.
The spy, outed by The Daily Caller as Russell Lowe, was ostensibly a driver and gofer for the senator. But that description belies his extensive work for Feinstein. He attended Chinese Consulate functions for the senator. He served as a liaison to the Asian-American community for her office.
This agent was more than just a driver who could overhear private conversations when the senator was in the car. He became an confidant with access to Feinstein. While a special counsel investigation drones on in Washington, the senator treads on her influence to avoid a similar probe.
This isn't Feinstein's first brush with Chinese interference. After hosting a fundraiser in her multi-million dollar California mansion, she was forced to return a campaign donation from a Chinese national as a result of a Department of Justice investigation in 1996.
Coincidentally, the senator has been one of the strongest proponents of closer ties with China, championing the Communist nation's causes for decades. Feinstein was instrumental in the effort to make China a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Taking advantage of her access, the senator's husband, investment financier Richard Blum, rode the coattails of his wife, accompanying her on numerous official government trips to China. Surely it was just a coincidence that Blum's firm Newbridge Capital began investing in the Asian country.
Prior to Feinstein entering the senate, Blum had little investment interest in China. At that time in 1992, he held a stake in one project worth less than $500,000, according to financial disclosure records. Apparently, he discovered more lucrative deals once he visited China with his wife.
In 1996, Blum invested $23 million in a steel company owned by the Chinese government. His firm also acquired assets in companies in the Communist nation that produce soybeans, milk and candy, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.
Under Blum's tutelage, the firm began sinking millions in Chinese government connected businesses. Before long, his China investments began to draw scrutiny, particularly a $300 million position in Northwest Airlines, then the sole non-stop operator with permission to fly from the U.S. to China.
When pesky questions arose in 1997, Blum dodged a media bludgeoning by cleverly pledging to donate any future profits from his holdings into a nonprofit foundation to aid Tibetan refugees. But in 2000, Newbridge continued to own stock worth millions in Chinese corporations.
An article in the Los Angeles Times pointed out the possible conflict of interest in 1997 and both Feinstein and Blum insisted they "maintained a solid firewall" between her role as an influential foreign policy player and his career as a private investor overseas.
Blum currently is chairman of Richard C. Blum & Associates, Inc., the general partner of Blum Capital Partners, L.P. The vice president of the firm is T.C. Ostrander, who served five years as Senator Feinstein's advisor on financial, banking and economic policy in Washington.
Apparently, the "firewall" doesn't preclude a cozy relationship between Blum's private firm and the senator's staff.
And Blum's firm continues to trade on its connections to China. For instance, one of the Blum Capital Partners' main investments is Avid Technology, which two years ago expanded its presence in China through a $75 million investment in a Beijing company.
In light of the current climate in Washington, eyebrows should be raised by this tale of spying and potential influence peddling. It is well known in the intelligence community that the Chinese are overtly courting favor with key U.S. influencers in both government and business.
Yet no one appears interested in Senator Feinstein's decades long friendly relationship with Chinese leaders nor her husband's investments in some of the Communist nation's state-owned businesses. Nothing to see here. Old news, the wealthy couple insist as they swat away prying eyes.
The Democrat senator, a long-time Chinese ally with 16 years tenure in the Senate, appears to be able to skirt the rules and standards that apply to other lawmakers and The White House. It must be good to be Dianne Feinstein.
The senator isn't just another faceless member of the chamber. This individual once chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee and now sits on the subcommittee for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Both groups receive briefings from intelligence agencies and review classified intel.
Five years ago, the FBI approached the senator to apprise her that a staffer was being investigated for spying for the Chinese. The senator's employee had never been vetted for a security clearance. Warned by the FBI, the senator quietly forced the traitorous staffer to retire in 2013.
This account is not a Hollywood film. California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein was duped by a Chinese espionage agent whose handlers operated in San Francisco. In what appears suspiciously like a cover up, the spy was never charged, saving Feinstein the embarrassment of a messy trial.
It may be purely coincidental but the Senate Intelligence Committee oversees certain FBI investigations into foreign activities. It is the same committee Feinstein once chaired. The FBI director at the time was none other than James Comey.
Did the FBI decide it did not want to make an enemy of a powerful senator who might be chair again? The questions do not end there.
How could a U.S. senator never suspect a Chinese mole was operating in her organization for two decades? Why did the FBI drop its probe even after they suspected the spy was sharing intel with the Chinese? How was Feinstein able to shield her entire office staff from further investigation?
Americans, especially Californians, deserve answers. Apparently, Feinstein considers the matter closed. The FBI's official conclusion is the spy didn't divulge "anything of substance." But there has been no public report issued by the agency. Not even Feinstein's staff knew a probe was going on.
A couple of articles appeared in San Francisco about the episode but the mainstream media ignored it. Then Politico ran a story online on July 27, 2018, recounting the Chinese recruitment of a member of the senator's staff. That compelled Feinstein to issue a formal statement on August 6.
In her brief written response, Feinstein said, "The FBI reviewed the matter, shared their concerns with me and the employee immediately left my office." She left unsaid that the staffer did not depart voluntarily but that the spy was "retired" by the senator.
The spy, outed by The Daily Caller as Russell Lowe, was ostensibly a driver and gofer for the senator. But that description belies his extensive work for Feinstein. He attended Chinese Consulate functions for the senator. He served as a liaison to the Asian-American community for her office.
This agent was more than just a driver who could overhear private conversations when the senator was in the car. He became an confidant with access to Feinstein. While a special counsel investigation drones on in Washington, the senator treads on her influence to avoid a similar probe.
This isn't Feinstein's first brush with Chinese interference. After hosting a fundraiser in her multi-million dollar California mansion, she was forced to return a campaign donation from a Chinese national as a result of a Department of Justice investigation in 1996.
Coincidentally, the senator has been one of the strongest proponents of closer ties with China, championing the Communist nation's causes for decades. Feinstein was instrumental in the effort to make China a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Taking advantage of her access, the senator's husband, investment financier Richard Blum, rode the coattails of his wife, accompanying her on numerous official government trips to China. Surely it was just a coincidence that Blum's firm Newbridge Capital began investing in the Asian country.
Prior to Feinstein entering the senate, Blum had little investment interest in China. At that time in 1992, he held a stake in one project worth less than $500,000, according to financial disclosure records. Apparently, he discovered more lucrative deals once he visited China with his wife.
In 1996, Blum invested $23 million in a steel company owned by the Chinese government. His firm also acquired assets in companies in the Communist nation that produce soybeans, milk and candy, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.
Under Blum's tutelage, the firm began sinking millions in Chinese government connected businesses. Before long, his China investments began to draw scrutiny, particularly a $300 million position in Northwest Airlines, then the sole non-stop operator with permission to fly from the U.S. to China.
When pesky questions arose in 1997, Blum dodged a media bludgeoning by cleverly pledging to donate any future profits from his holdings into a nonprofit foundation to aid Tibetan refugees. But in 2000, Newbridge continued to own stock worth millions in Chinese corporations.
An article in the Los Angeles Times pointed out the possible conflict of interest in 1997 and both Feinstein and Blum insisted they "maintained a solid firewall" between her role as an influential foreign policy player and his career as a private investor overseas.
Blum currently is chairman of Richard C. Blum & Associates, Inc., the general partner of Blum Capital Partners, L.P. The vice president of the firm is T.C. Ostrander, who served five years as Senator Feinstein's advisor on financial, banking and economic policy in Washington.
Apparently, the "firewall" doesn't preclude a cozy relationship between Blum's private firm and the senator's staff.
And Blum's firm continues to trade on its connections to China. For instance, one of the Blum Capital Partners' main investments is Avid Technology, which two years ago expanded its presence in China through a $75 million investment in a Beijing company.
In light of the current climate in Washington, eyebrows should be raised by this tale of spying and potential influence peddling. It is well known in the intelligence community that the Chinese are overtly courting favor with key U.S. influencers in both government and business.
Yet no one appears interested in Senator Feinstein's decades long friendly relationship with Chinese leaders nor her husband's investments in some of the Communist nation's state-owned businesses. Nothing to see here. Old news, the wealthy couple insist as they swat away prying eyes.
The Democrat senator, a long-time Chinese ally with 16 years tenure in the Senate, appears to be able to skirt the rules and standards that apply to other lawmakers and The White House. It must be good to be Dianne Feinstein.
Monday, February 25, 2019
Chemotherapy Ward: Facing My Worst Fears
Shafts of light from rows of windows illuminate the sterile room. A sallow-faced woman hooked up to an intravenous drip slouches in a oversized lounge chair. Her bald head, cloaked by a crocheted hat, droops on her chest. A toxic cocktail of drugs surges through her body as she naps.
A tube winds from a plastic bag to a port, a small disk inserted under the skin in her chest. The drugs sap her strength and drain her energy. From her looks, she appears to be in her 70's. It's only a guess because cancer and chemotherapy sabotage the body, affecting your physical appearance.
As I approach the petite woman, I observe the hushed conversations swirling around patients seated in adjoining chairs. Some patients read to pass the time. Others watch television or listen to music. The fortune ones have family sitting in comfortable chairs next to them, chatting quietly.
When I reach the woman, I see a blanket hugs her tiny frame. She is experiencing chills. However, there are worst side effects. Vomiting and nausea are the most common. But the list of reactions is long: fatigue, infection, anemia, loss of appetite, digestive distress, anxiety and hair loss. And more.
The anonymous woman is in the Infusion Center at the Mays Cancer Center in San Antonio, a facility affiliated with the UT Health Center and MD Anderson. I am present as a volunteer, offering snacks to patients. It isn't my first visit to a chemotherapy ward. But I still feel awkward and nervous.
The woman opens her sleepy eyes as I roll the squeaky snack car near her chair. I tick off a list of snacks and surprisingly she opts for the ice cream. With seemingly great effort, she stretches out her withered hand to receive the plastic cup. She offers her thanks and a smile that warms the room.
As I move from patient to patient, I am amazed by their spunk, their grit. They are determined to battle this cruel disease on their own terms. One patient is dressed as if she is attending a fancy charity ball. I remark on her colorful outfit. "I won't let cancer define who I am," she says.
Some family and friends faithfully accompany patients to each treatment. These angels of mercy kibitz with their loved ones, providing a welcome distraction. But it is the patients who are fighting alone who tug at my heartstrings. Who consoles these souls? I pray they will be comforted.
These patients are hidden from most of society who will never view the inside of a cancer treatment facility. Their sufferings go unnoticed and unrecorded except by the doctors, nurses and families who care for them. Perhaps, if more people witnessed, the war on cancer would be our nation's priority.
According to the American Cancer Society, the latest figures show there were an estimated 1,688,780 new cases of cancer reported in the United States in 2017. That same year cancer claimed 600,920 lives. It is our nation's second leading cause of death, eclipsed only by heart disease.
Older Americans, like the fragile patient snuggled in the blanket, are especially prone to the disease as they age. Seventy-five percent of all newly diagnosed cancers occur in people aged 60 and over, according to research by the World Health Organization (WHO).
For many patients, chemotherapy is the regimen of treatment. A powerful legion of drugs is administered to patients to target cancer cells. Unfortunately, these drugs also affect healthy cells, weakening the immune system. In the best outcomes, chemo wipes out cancer cells forever.
Those are the lucky ones. For others, the chemotherapy cannot cure or arrest the spread of cancer. Potent drugs may temporarily shrink tumors, but they often return with a vengeance. However, if the cancer is detected early enough, chemo saves lives, even as it ravages the body, mind and soul.
I focus on good outcomes as I greet each patient in the Infusion Center. I find hope in this place that once depressed me. Suffering exists but so does healing. I cringe when I contemplate I may end up here one day. Good health is no guarantee. Cancer is an insidious evil always hunting new victims.
There are even occasions of joy in this antiseptic place. When patients complete their last course of treatment, they ring a Victory Bell as they exit the Infusion Center. Often family and friends are there to celebrate. A loved one usually videos the ceremony to preserve this triumph of life.
Now that I have been roaming the cancer treatment facilities at the Mays center for several years, I have a new perspective. I see the patients as part of our community, not diseased, anonymous individuals. They are fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. Their sole purpose is to beat cancer.
Their lifespan is measured not in years or months or even days. Each hour is a blessing to be cherished. My brief encounters with these courageous patients are inspirational. I forget whatever troubles have squeezed into my life. They are trivial compared to fighting for another day of life.
When I reflect on the beginning of this volunteer journey, I am embarrassed I was reluctant to venture into the unknown realm of a cancer ward. However, with introspection and time, now I look forward to seeing these warriors. I realize I am among heroes and heroines. That is my reward.
A tube winds from a plastic bag to a port, a small disk inserted under the skin in her chest. The drugs sap her strength and drain her energy. From her looks, she appears to be in her 70's. It's only a guess because cancer and chemotherapy sabotage the body, affecting your physical appearance.
As I approach the petite woman, I observe the hushed conversations swirling around patients seated in adjoining chairs. Some patients read to pass the time. Others watch television or listen to music. The fortune ones have family sitting in comfortable chairs next to them, chatting quietly.
When I reach the woman, I see a blanket hugs her tiny frame. She is experiencing chills. However, there are worst side effects. Vomiting and nausea are the most common. But the list of reactions is long: fatigue, infection, anemia, loss of appetite, digestive distress, anxiety and hair loss. And more.
The anonymous woman is in the Infusion Center at the Mays Cancer Center in San Antonio, a facility affiliated with the UT Health Center and MD Anderson. I am present as a volunteer, offering snacks to patients. It isn't my first visit to a chemotherapy ward. But I still feel awkward and nervous.
The woman opens her sleepy eyes as I roll the squeaky snack car near her chair. I tick off a list of snacks and surprisingly she opts for the ice cream. With seemingly great effort, she stretches out her withered hand to receive the plastic cup. She offers her thanks and a smile that warms the room.
As I move from patient to patient, I am amazed by their spunk, their grit. They are determined to battle this cruel disease on their own terms. One patient is dressed as if she is attending a fancy charity ball. I remark on her colorful outfit. "I won't let cancer define who I am," she says.
Some family and friends faithfully accompany patients to each treatment. These angels of mercy kibitz with their loved ones, providing a welcome distraction. But it is the patients who are fighting alone who tug at my heartstrings. Who consoles these souls? I pray they will be comforted.
These patients are hidden from most of society who will never view the inside of a cancer treatment facility. Their sufferings go unnoticed and unrecorded except by the doctors, nurses and families who care for them. Perhaps, if more people witnessed, the war on cancer would be our nation's priority.
According to the American Cancer Society, the latest figures show there were an estimated 1,688,780 new cases of cancer reported in the United States in 2017. That same year cancer claimed 600,920 lives. It is our nation's second leading cause of death, eclipsed only by heart disease.
Older Americans, like the fragile patient snuggled in the blanket, are especially prone to the disease as they age. Seventy-five percent of all newly diagnosed cancers occur in people aged 60 and over, according to research by the World Health Organization (WHO).
For many patients, chemotherapy is the regimen of treatment. A powerful legion of drugs is administered to patients to target cancer cells. Unfortunately, these drugs also affect healthy cells, weakening the immune system. In the best outcomes, chemo wipes out cancer cells forever.
Those are the lucky ones. For others, the chemotherapy cannot cure or arrest the spread of cancer. Potent drugs may temporarily shrink tumors, but they often return with a vengeance. However, if the cancer is detected early enough, chemo saves lives, even as it ravages the body, mind and soul.
I focus on good outcomes as I greet each patient in the Infusion Center. I find hope in this place that once depressed me. Suffering exists but so does healing. I cringe when I contemplate I may end up here one day. Good health is no guarantee. Cancer is an insidious evil always hunting new victims.
There are even occasions of joy in this antiseptic place. When patients complete their last course of treatment, they ring a Victory Bell as they exit the Infusion Center. Often family and friends are there to celebrate. A loved one usually videos the ceremony to preserve this triumph of life.
Now that I have been roaming the cancer treatment facilities at the Mays center for several years, I have a new perspective. I see the patients as part of our community, not diseased, anonymous individuals. They are fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. Their sole purpose is to beat cancer.
Their lifespan is measured not in years or months or even days. Each hour is a blessing to be cherished. My brief encounters with these courageous patients are inspirational. I forget whatever troubles have squeezed into my life. They are trivial compared to fighting for another day of life.
When I reflect on the beginning of this volunteer journey, I am embarrassed I was reluctant to venture into the unknown realm of a cancer ward. However, with introspection and time, now I look forward to seeing these warriors. I realize I am among heroes and heroines. That is my reward.
Sunday, February 17, 2019
Medicare For All: Surest Way To Bankrupt America
Democrats, egged on by the party's rising socialist wing, are recycling a free health care idea with a shiny new label. They are advocating "Medicare for All" with the lure of no co-pays, no deductibles and no-cost sharing. Free healthcare for everyone. It's political seduction.
A similar idea was first trotted out in 2016 by former presidential candidate Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist. The 77-year old independent won over swooning young people with his Utopian idea of free healthcare. But the scheme faded along with Sanders' presidential aspirations.
Then 29-year-old first-term Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez burst onto the political scene in January, resuscitating the concept with a catchy twist, "Medicare for All." When the idea fueled flattering media coverage, many Democratic presidential candidates leaped on the bandwagon.
Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is a fervent disciple of a single-payer system. Under her plan, all healthcare financing is provided by one entity, in this case the federal government. Everyone receives coverage, regardless of income, occupation or health status.
With single-payer, about 156.1 million people covered by employer health insurance would be forced to give up their plans. Private insurance firms would cease operations leaving every American solely dependent on the federal government for primary health coverage. There would be no other choice.
Despite the allure of a government freebie, healthcare would not magically become free. People may not pay the doctor, however, Americans will be on the hook for a steep bill for healthcare in the form of higher taxes and budget deficits. The tab for the plan worries economists and financial experts.
Bloomberg News, a liberal media voice, unveiled an analysis of "Medicare for All" prepared by the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. Assuming the program was launched in 2022, the price tag for the first ten years ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.
All those zeroes are difficult to grasp without some perspective. For instance, the total federal spending for providing Medicare coverage in fiscal year 2018 was $712 billion. Expanding the plan to cover all Americans would append an estimated $3.7 trillion annually to the cost of the program.
The government can barely afford its existing healthcare obligations. The latest Medicare Trustees report released in 2017 calculated that the Part A Trust Fund, which covers payments for hospital care, will be exhausted in 2026. That's three years earlier than the previous year's estimate.
Consider in fiscal year 2018 total federal government spending stood at $4.1 trillion. Adding another $3.7 trillion would increase the nation's debt while triggering catastrophic tax hikes. America's debt has already crept past $22 trillion, double the amount at the end of 2008. More debt is not free.
In the last fiscal year, taxpayers ponied up $364 billion in interest payments for the nation's ballooning debt. That represented 8.3 percent of the federal government's total budget. With interest rates rising, each new dollar of debt will be more costly to finance, hiking future interest payments.
Democrats' solution is to raise taxes on billionaires. That always polls well with voters. However, even if the Internal Revenue Service confiscated the current entire wealth of American billionaires--$2.39 trillion-- the figure would not even cover one year's worth of costs for "Medicare for All."
The economics of "Medicare for All" have already discouraged a several states from enacting their own ambitious single-payer healthcare programs. Last month North Carolina deep-sixed its plan after the costs were estimated at $101 billion a year.
Even that liberal bastion of free, California, pulled the plug on single-payer legislation even after it was approved in the state senate because questions cropped up about the source of funding $400 billion in annual costs. Vermont also abandoned a copycat plan over the bloated expenditure.
For the sake of argument, let's assume "Medicare for All" becomes a reality. The plan will exacerbate a problem no proponent ever talks about while plugging the virtues of Medicare, a program originally designed to cover seniors 65-years old and up.
Medicare coverage is no panacea. It pays for substantially less services than private insurance plans offered by companies to their employees. For example, it will not bear the expense for long-term care, most dental care, eye exams for prescription glasses, hospice care or routine foot care.
Ocasio-Cortez counters her plan will tack on vision and dental care under "Medicare for All." A grandiose gesture but Medicare reimburses doctors anywhere from five-to-40 percent less than private insurers for the same services. As a result, thousands of doctors no longer accept Medicare.
It is inconceivable dentists and ophthalmologists would agree to reduced reimbursement schedules after never having to take such a haircut for fees. Physicians have operated under the Medicare burden for years and they are bailing. Why would these specialists accept Medicare patients?
In 2013, an annual report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent congressional agency, found that nearly one-third (28%) of its beneficiaries had trouble finding a primary care physician willing to treat patients with Medicare coverage.
Every year more doctors are hanging out signs in their lobbies that read: "Not Accepting New Medicare Patients." According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 9,539 doctors quit serving patients with Medicare in 2012 because of lower payments for fees.
If millions of Americans are added to the rolls of Medicare, there is the looming threat more doctors will follow suit. What good will Medicare coverage be if your primary care physician no longer accepts the plan? "Medicare for All" advocates appear unconcerned about this prospect.
Even if doctors are coerced into taking patients with Medicare, there will be an insufficient number of primary care physicians to handle the anticipated increase in office visits. According to national projections, there will be a shortage of 200,000 primary care physicians by 2025.
Before Americans fall in love with "free" healthcare, they would be advised study the consequences of such a plan. However, don't expect politicians to enlighten the populace. They believe they can dupe naive American voters by just repeating the word "free" over-and-over-and-over.
A similar idea was first trotted out in 2016 by former presidential candidate Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist. The 77-year old independent won over swooning young people with his Utopian idea of free healthcare. But the scheme faded along with Sanders' presidential aspirations.
Then 29-year-old first-term Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez burst onto the political scene in January, resuscitating the concept with a catchy twist, "Medicare for All." When the idea fueled flattering media coverage, many Democratic presidential candidates leaped on the bandwagon.
Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is a fervent disciple of a single-payer system. Under her plan, all healthcare financing is provided by one entity, in this case the federal government. Everyone receives coverage, regardless of income, occupation or health status.
With single-payer, about 156.1 million people covered by employer health insurance would be forced to give up their plans. Private insurance firms would cease operations leaving every American solely dependent on the federal government for primary health coverage. There would be no other choice.
Despite the allure of a government freebie, healthcare would not magically become free. People may not pay the doctor, however, Americans will be on the hook for a steep bill for healthcare in the form of higher taxes and budget deficits. The tab for the plan worries economists and financial experts.
Bloomberg News, a liberal media voice, unveiled an analysis of "Medicare for All" prepared by the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. Assuming the program was launched in 2022, the price tag for the first ten years ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.
All those zeroes are difficult to grasp without some perspective. For instance, the total federal spending for providing Medicare coverage in fiscal year 2018 was $712 billion. Expanding the plan to cover all Americans would append an estimated $3.7 trillion annually to the cost of the program.
The government can barely afford its existing healthcare obligations. The latest Medicare Trustees report released in 2017 calculated that the Part A Trust Fund, which covers payments for hospital care, will be exhausted in 2026. That's three years earlier than the previous year's estimate.
Consider in fiscal year 2018 total federal government spending stood at $4.1 trillion. Adding another $3.7 trillion would increase the nation's debt while triggering catastrophic tax hikes. America's debt has already crept past $22 trillion, double the amount at the end of 2008. More debt is not free.
In the last fiscal year, taxpayers ponied up $364 billion in interest payments for the nation's ballooning debt. That represented 8.3 percent of the federal government's total budget. With interest rates rising, each new dollar of debt will be more costly to finance, hiking future interest payments.
Democrats' solution is to raise taxes on billionaires. That always polls well with voters. However, even if the Internal Revenue Service confiscated the current entire wealth of American billionaires--$2.39 trillion-- the figure would not even cover one year's worth of costs for "Medicare for All."
The economics of "Medicare for All" have already discouraged a several states from enacting their own ambitious single-payer healthcare programs. Last month North Carolina deep-sixed its plan after the costs were estimated at $101 billion a year.
Even that liberal bastion of free, California, pulled the plug on single-payer legislation even after it was approved in the state senate because questions cropped up about the source of funding $400 billion in annual costs. Vermont also abandoned a copycat plan over the bloated expenditure.
For the sake of argument, let's assume "Medicare for All" becomes a reality. The plan will exacerbate a problem no proponent ever talks about while plugging the virtues of Medicare, a program originally designed to cover seniors 65-years old and up.
Medicare coverage is no panacea. It pays for substantially less services than private insurance plans offered by companies to their employees. For example, it will not bear the expense for long-term care, most dental care, eye exams for prescription glasses, hospice care or routine foot care.
Ocasio-Cortez counters her plan will tack on vision and dental care under "Medicare for All." A grandiose gesture but Medicare reimburses doctors anywhere from five-to-40 percent less than private insurers for the same services. As a result, thousands of doctors no longer accept Medicare.
It is inconceivable dentists and ophthalmologists would agree to reduced reimbursement schedules after never having to take such a haircut for fees. Physicians have operated under the Medicare burden for years and they are bailing. Why would these specialists accept Medicare patients?
In 2013, an annual report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent congressional agency, found that nearly one-third (28%) of its beneficiaries had trouble finding a primary care physician willing to treat patients with Medicare coverage.
Every year more doctors are hanging out signs in their lobbies that read: "Not Accepting New Medicare Patients." According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 9,539 doctors quit serving patients with Medicare in 2012 because of lower payments for fees.
If millions of Americans are added to the rolls of Medicare, there is the looming threat more doctors will follow suit. What good will Medicare coverage be if your primary care physician no longer accepts the plan? "Medicare for All" advocates appear unconcerned about this prospect.
Even if doctors are coerced into taking patients with Medicare, there will be an insufficient number of primary care physicians to handle the anticipated increase in office visits. According to national projections, there will be a shortage of 200,000 primary care physicians by 2025.
Before Americans fall in love with "free" healthcare, they would be advised study the consequences of such a plan. However, don't expect politicians to enlighten the populace. They believe they can dupe naive American voters by just repeating the word "free" over-and-over-and-over.
Monday, February 11, 2019
What's Driving Push For Late Term Abortions?
Democrats are unfurling legislation in states across the country to expand laws allowing abortion up to the point of birth. An early success in New York state has ignited a wave of similar proposals, fueling a simmering national debate that is roiling an already contentious political climate.
The initial shot was fired last month when the Democratic-controlled New York legislature authorized sweeping new measures to allow so-called late-term abortions. The bill was promoted under the pretense to save women from traveling out of state for abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy.
The bill doesn't just preserve abortion rights, which are legal in every state, it allows the procedure past the 24th week if the health of the mother is endangered, which can be interpreted as mental or emotional conditions. Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic, championed the legislation.
A similar law was voted down in the Virginia legislature after an advocate, Kathy Tran, described the grisly details of a life-or-death decision occurring even as the baby is being born. That chilling prospect had opponents labeling the law "infanticide." Virginia's Democrat governor backed the law.
Vermont lawmakers are considering a bill that would go beyond the New York law. The proposal would allow for the procedure to be performed up until the point of birth for any reason. The proposed law states "a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus shall not have independent rights" in Vermont.
Americans might be bewildered by this blitzkrieg for extending term limits on abortion. A Marist poll of adults nationwide found that 76 percent of Americans favor limiting abortion to the first three months of pregnancy. That number included 60 percent of adults who self-identified as pro-choice.
No evidence was presented during the New York debate to suggest women are clamoring for the right to abort babies up until the moment of birth. It begs the question: Why was the Democratic dominated legislature aggressively pushing this agenda?
No factual argument can be made there is limited access to abortions in the United States. Just since 2000, there have been 11,204,207 legal abortions, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The abortion rate in 2015 was 118 abortions for every 1,000 live births.
In New York, the state's figures were among the highest in the nation. A CDC report shows New York City preformed 544 abortions for every 1,000 live births. That means about one in three unborn babies were aborted. Abortion access is a red herring to promote the aggressive expansion.
To justify their campaign, Democrats are spreading fear that the current Supreme Court will limit the right to an abortion. This smoke screen is one Democrats have used ever since the landmark Roe vs. Wade high court decision in 1973 confirmed a women's right to have an abortion.
After 46 years, the decision remains intact. To demonstrate the folly of their claims, last week the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to temporarily block a Louisiana law that placed restrictions on abortion clinics, requiring providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
Isn't it time for Democrats to stop using this canard? The late-term abortion issue has nothing to do with their fabrication of a Roe vs. Wade reversal. The party is eyeing the pivotal 2020 presidential election and planning to once again play identity politics with a "women's right to choose."
Their new tactic is to force Republicans to try to defeat this legislation so Democrats can smear the party as misogynist, Neanderthals who want to enslave women and deny them the right to control their bodies. It is right out of the Democrats antiquated playbook to galvanize their female base.
But Democrats may have miscalculated Americans' sentiment on this issue. As polling suggests, there is little support even among pro-choice advocates for ending the lives of babies seconds before birth. When the procedure's macabre details are explained, most Americans recoil in horror.
The latest CDC data found 91.1 percent of all abortions are performed less than 13 weeks after pregnancy. Fewer than 1.3 percent are done after 21 weeks. There are no facts to suggest there is an unmet demand among women for late-term abortions. Any "evidence" is anecdotal at best.
Democrats and their accomplices in the news media appear to be guilty of overreach on this issue. They may be surprised by the blowback from voters outside liberal states such as New York. Virginia is a case in point. But don't expect that prospect to alter their political skulduggery.
The initial shot was fired last month when the Democratic-controlled New York legislature authorized sweeping new measures to allow so-called late-term abortions. The bill was promoted under the pretense to save women from traveling out of state for abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy.
The bill doesn't just preserve abortion rights, which are legal in every state, it allows the procedure past the 24th week if the health of the mother is endangered, which can be interpreted as mental or emotional conditions. Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic, championed the legislation.
A similar law was voted down in the Virginia legislature after an advocate, Kathy Tran, described the grisly details of a life-or-death decision occurring even as the baby is being born. That chilling prospect had opponents labeling the law "infanticide." Virginia's Democrat governor backed the law.
Vermont lawmakers are considering a bill that would go beyond the New York law. The proposal would allow for the procedure to be performed up until the point of birth for any reason. The proposed law states "a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus shall not have independent rights" in Vermont.
Americans might be bewildered by this blitzkrieg for extending term limits on abortion. A Marist poll of adults nationwide found that 76 percent of Americans favor limiting abortion to the first three months of pregnancy. That number included 60 percent of adults who self-identified as pro-choice.
No evidence was presented during the New York debate to suggest women are clamoring for the right to abort babies up until the moment of birth. It begs the question: Why was the Democratic dominated legislature aggressively pushing this agenda?
No factual argument can be made there is limited access to abortions in the United States. Just since 2000, there have been 11,204,207 legal abortions, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The abortion rate in 2015 was 118 abortions for every 1,000 live births.
In New York, the state's figures were among the highest in the nation. A CDC report shows New York City preformed 544 abortions for every 1,000 live births. That means about one in three unborn babies were aborted. Abortion access is a red herring to promote the aggressive expansion.
To justify their campaign, Democrats are spreading fear that the current Supreme Court will limit the right to an abortion. This smoke screen is one Democrats have used ever since the landmark Roe vs. Wade high court decision in 1973 confirmed a women's right to have an abortion.
After 46 years, the decision remains intact. To demonstrate the folly of their claims, last week the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to temporarily block a Louisiana law that placed restrictions on abortion clinics, requiring providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
Isn't it time for Democrats to stop using this canard? The late-term abortion issue has nothing to do with their fabrication of a Roe vs. Wade reversal. The party is eyeing the pivotal 2020 presidential election and planning to once again play identity politics with a "women's right to choose."
Their new tactic is to force Republicans to try to defeat this legislation so Democrats can smear the party as misogynist, Neanderthals who want to enslave women and deny them the right to control their bodies. It is right out of the Democrats antiquated playbook to galvanize their female base.
But Democrats may have miscalculated Americans' sentiment on this issue. As polling suggests, there is little support even among pro-choice advocates for ending the lives of babies seconds before birth. When the procedure's macabre details are explained, most Americans recoil in horror.
The latest CDC data found 91.1 percent of all abortions are performed less than 13 weeks after pregnancy. Fewer than 1.3 percent are done after 21 weeks. There are no facts to suggest there is an unmet demand among women for late-term abortions. Any "evidence" is anecdotal at best.
Democrats and their accomplices in the news media appear to be guilty of overreach on this issue. They may be surprised by the blowback from voters outside liberal states such as New York. Virginia is a case in point. But don't expect that prospect to alter their political skulduggery.
Monday, February 4, 2019
Writing The Great American Novel
When I retired, a slice of my identity died. For the first time in 40 years, I was unemployed. What would I do the rest of my life? The question lingered for months while I over indulged in my favorite pastime golf. Soon almost daily rounds of golf became too much like a job. Now what?
Then one day a thunderbolt of inspiration struck. My passion has always been writing. No longer shackled to an office desk, I could pursue my dream of becoming an author. Fantasies of a best-selling novel danced in my head. Book tours. Autographs. A blockbuster movie. I was smitten.
My first move was to gather data. I pored over books on how to become a published author. I boned up on what themes and genres appealed to publishing houses. Along the way, I discovered the odds of getting a novel published are astronomical.
Consider the facts: there are a few thousand literary agents. Each one receives an estimated 10,000 queries from aspiring writers. Do the math. About 65,000 new books are published annually, most by established authors. A new writer has a better chance of winning the lottery.
Undeterred, my fingers flew across my keyboard as I drafted my first novel. It was exhilarating as the shape of a book appeared on my computer screen. After I completed the masterpiece, I handed it to Dianna to read, expecting breathless praise. Instead, she uttered the sad truth. It reeked. Skunky.
My ego shattered, I stewed over her assessment. In reviewing the work, I arrived at the same conclusion. It lacked drama, empathetic characters, structure and a few colons. It was consigned to the trash along with leftover pizza. In hindsight, I had little enthusiasm for the subject matter.
Being an author was harder work than I imagined. Just before admitting defeat, we were vacationing in New York City when Dianna announced she had a dream the previous night about diamonds. She thought it would be a good subject for a book. I politely smiled and nodded absently. Whatever.
While she shopped, I ducked into a book store and scanned the shelves for tomes about diamonds to satisfy my curiosity. I flipped the pages of a few books. Then I spotted a magazine with an article speculating that Bin Laden had been peddling raw diamonds to finance his terror network.
Arriving back in San Antonio, I researched every news article, book and archive for information about the Bin Laden story. There were tantalizing tidbits but mostly hearsey. That meant, as a novelist, I had a license to write my own fictionalized story based on a smidgen of facts.
As I dug deeper, I discovered evidence. According to news reports, Bin Laden's jihadists had struck deals to acquire $30 million in so-called blood diamonds before the attacks of 9/11. The diamonds came from mines in Sierra Leone. The stones route from Africa to Bin Laden remained a mystery.
I pounded the keyboard for nearly a year, writing chapter-after-chapter. The pacing of the book was much faster than my flawed original. I wanted a page-turner no reader could snooze through. The copy was littered with facts about diamonds, ruthless dealers and secretive diamond trading.
The finished product in hand, I began the process of marketing the book, contacting a carefully researched cadre of agents who handled new authors. A one-page letter and a one-page synopsis of the book was shipped to a dozen literary highbrows. Then the waiting game began.
Agent replies dribbled into the mailbox. The first to land were a couple of form letters with the salutation, "Dear Author." That was the certain kiss of death. Then a few brighter notes showed up. One agent praised the idea of the book, but declined because she wasn't accepting new clients.
Just when my hopes were fading, two agents dispatched encouraging letters seeking the first two chapters of my book, titled "Terror Diamonds." My pulsed quickened. My ego soared. I dashed off the chapters and waited. And anxiously fretted. Finally, two emails dropped into my inbox.
There were platitudes about the writing style, the plot and the research. But the two agents passed. No reasons were given for their decisions. I fumed for a couple of weeks before working up the courage to query the agents for explanations. Both declined. "We don't do that," was the answer.
In a last ditch attempt to salvage my book, I fired off another round of letters to dozens of agents. More rejections knocked the stuffing out of my ego. Deflated, I reluctantly surrendered my dream. I wasn't going to be a best-selling author. I wasn't even going to get a single word published.
Today I have reconciled myself to treasure the experience of writing a book. Lots of folks talk about penning a novel. Not many actually finish one. I feel better for having tried and failed. I never have to regret what might have been. That provides a scintilla of balm for my journalistic self esteem.
I remain a voracious consumer of books. Once in a while, when I read a novel I discern a fuzzy plot or misplaced comma. I think, "My book is better than this dribble." But so what? This writer won the publishing lottery. That's something to admire because most of us will never experience it.
Then one day a thunderbolt of inspiration struck. My passion has always been writing. No longer shackled to an office desk, I could pursue my dream of becoming an author. Fantasies of a best-selling novel danced in my head. Book tours. Autographs. A blockbuster movie. I was smitten.
My first move was to gather data. I pored over books on how to become a published author. I boned up on what themes and genres appealed to publishing houses. Along the way, I discovered the odds of getting a novel published are astronomical.
Consider the facts: there are a few thousand literary agents. Each one receives an estimated 10,000 queries from aspiring writers. Do the math. About 65,000 new books are published annually, most by established authors. A new writer has a better chance of winning the lottery.
Undeterred, my fingers flew across my keyboard as I drafted my first novel. It was exhilarating as the shape of a book appeared on my computer screen. After I completed the masterpiece, I handed it to Dianna to read, expecting breathless praise. Instead, she uttered the sad truth. It reeked. Skunky.
My ego shattered, I stewed over her assessment. In reviewing the work, I arrived at the same conclusion. It lacked drama, empathetic characters, structure and a few colons. It was consigned to the trash along with leftover pizza. In hindsight, I had little enthusiasm for the subject matter.
Being an author was harder work than I imagined. Just before admitting defeat, we were vacationing in New York City when Dianna announced she had a dream the previous night about diamonds. She thought it would be a good subject for a book. I politely smiled and nodded absently. Whatever.
While she shopped, I ducked into a book store and scanned the shelves for tomes about diamonds to satisfy my curiosity. I flipped the pages of a few books. Then I spotted a magazine with an article speculating that Bin Laden had been peddling raw diamonds to finance his terror network.
Arriving back in San Antonio, I researched every news article, book and archive for information about the Bin Laden story. There were tantalizing tidbits but mostly hearsey. That meant, as a novelist, I had a license to write my own fictionalized story based on a smidgen of facts.
As I dug deeper, I discovered evidence. According to news reports, Bin Laden's jihadists had struck deals to acquire $30 million in so-called blood diamonds before the attacks of 9/11. The diamonds came from mines in Sierra Leone. The stones route from Africa to Bin Laden remained a mystery.
I pounded the keyboard for nearly a year, writing chapter-after-chapter. The pacing of the book was much faster than my flawed original. I wanted a page-turner no reader could snooze through. The copy was littered with facts about diamonds, ruthless dealers and secretive diamond trading.
The finished product in hand, I began the process of marketing the book, contacting a carefully researched cadre of agents who handled new authors. A one-page letter and a one-page synopsis of the book was shipped to a dozen literary highbrows. Then the waiting game began.
Agent replies dribbled into the mailbox. The first to land were a couple of form letters with the salutation, "Dear Author." That was the certain kiss of death. Then a few brighter notes showed up. One agent praised the idea of the book, but declined because she wasn't accepting new clients.
Just when my hopes were fading, two agents dispatched encouraging letters seeking the first two chapters of my book, titled "Terror Diamonds." My pulsed quickened. My ego soared. I dashed off the chapters and waited. And anxiously fretted. Finally, two emails dropped into my inbox.
There were platitudes about the writing style, the plot and the research. But the two agents passed. No reasons were given for their decisions. I fumed for a couple of weeks before working up the courage to query the agents for explanations. Both declined. "We don't do that," was the answer.
In a last ditch attempt to salvage my book, I fired off another round of letters to dozens of agents. More rejections knocked the stuffing out of my ego. Deflated, I reluctantly surrendered my dream. I wasn't going to be a best-selling author. I wasn't even going to get a single word published.
Today I have reconciled myself to treasure the experience of writing a book. Lots of folks talk about penning a novel. Not many actually finish one. I feel better for having tried and failed. I never have to regret what might have been. That provides a scintilla of balm for my journalistic self esteem.
I remain a voracious consumer of books. Once in a while, when I read a novel I discern a fuzzy plot or misplaced comma. I think, "My book is better than this dribble." But so what? This writer won the publishing lottery. That's something to admire because most of us will never experience it.
Monday, January 28, 2019
Media Shame: Savage Attacks on Catholic Teens
Wearing a red hat in America has been demonized by the news media and those who hate the president. A small group of teens recently discovered the depth of this loathing . They were mocked, taunted and verbally assaulted for the crime of donning Make America Great Again hats.
For their grievous sin, these students from a Kentucky Catholic high school have endured media smears, death threats and character assassination. The media fueled furor over the incident at the national March for Life forced the school to shutter its doors for fear of violence against its students.
How could this happen in America? The blame rests squarely on the stoop shouldered news media. Journalists, a misnomer if there ever was one, jumped to conclusions based on their own biases and spread a false narrative about an incident involving the school kids, endangering their lives.
A small group of Covington Catholic High School youngsters were peacefully leaving the pro-life rally in Washington, D.C when a handful of black Hebrew Israelites and left-wing activists hurled insults at the students. In response, the students sang their school song, refusing the hateful bait.
Then a self-appointed Native American activist entered the fray, banging a drum and confronting one of the students. To his credit, the student only smiled without uttering a word. Within minutes, a video appeared on social media that exploded into bombastic news coverage by the media.
America's media, its reputation for fairness long ago shredded, based its reporting mostly on a snippet of video and the comments of Native American Nathan Phillips, who claimed to be a a Vietnam War veteran. News commentators inflamed passions by hastily condemning the kids.
Television reporters denounced the youngsters as bigots. Journalists called them "privileged" white elitists. Hollywood actors suggested they kids should be hunted down and punched in the face. Some on social media called for the youngsters to be killed.
Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar, an anti-Semite serving her first term in the U.S. Congress, tweeted: "The boys were protesting a woman's right to choose & yelled, "It's not rape if you enjoy it." They were taunting 5 Black men before they surrounded Phillips and led racist chants."
NBC called the incident "a troubling scene many are calling racist played out in Washington." CNN, the network no one should trust, described the scene as a "mob of MAGA hat-wearing high school students." An MSNBC news panelist compared the students to neo-Nazis.
USA Today featured an interview with Phillips, who belittled the youngsters as "beastly" and having a "mob mentality." The New York Times labeled the teenagers "racists" for mocking a veteran. The Washington Post lambasted the Catholic Church's sordid history of Native American abuses.
These choir boy-faced high school youths overnight became the most hated figures in America. Then the media story began to unravel. As more video surfaced of the incident near the Lincoln Memorial, it became obvious the teenagers were passive bystanders, not the aggressors.
No video evidence exists showing the kids shouting anything racist or mentioning rape. The adult sponsors accompanying the youngsters publicly discredited the media's version. A youth wearing the MAGA hat was interviewed and refuted the remarks that the activists claimed he made.
Why didn't the news media interview the sponsors and the youngsters before they rushed to judgment? The answer is obvious. There were not interested in the truth. They wanted to advance the narrative of MAGA hats being a symbol of bigotry. Their hatred for Trump was bared.
The Native American Philips was unmasked as a career provocateur who regularly shows up a protests, representing himself. He is not an Vietnam veteran as he claims. He served in the Marine Reserves, spending most of his time in sunny California instead of the steamy jungles of Vietnam.
A day after the confrontation Phillips disrupted mass at Washington's Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, beating his drum and marching down the aisles. Phillips is a trouble maker not a peacemaker. He is a charlatan. His real name is Nathaniel R. Stanard.
As the truth emerged, some media outlets tried to walk back the story in an attempt to salvage their tattered reputations. But too many newsrooms decided to just let the story fade away rather than apologizing to the school and the teenagers they ran roughshod over.
Beside the obvious malicious reporting, there are two recurring themes this incident illuminates. The first is the media has abandoned all pretense of being unbiased. Journalists are out to tarnish the president even if a falsehood has to be dressed up as legitimate news. It is shameful and indefensible.
The second is a virulent strain of anti-Catholicism is rising in the country. These youngsters were singled out because of their religion as much as for their alleged behavior. This bigoted religious bias also reared its ugly head during the confirmation of Justice Gorsuch and other Catholic judges.
The Covington Catholic High School recently reopened its doors to students. But the fallout from the media coverage of the pro-life rally will haunt these youngsters for the remainder of their lives. They have been permanently tarnished as extremists and racists. The stain will linger.
Meanwhile, the media will turn its attention to the next scandal, unconcerned about the damage its erroneous reporting inflicted on innocent young people. Polling shows Americans' trust in the media has sunk to an all-time low. In the current environment, it is a race to rock bottom.
For their grievous sin, these students from a Kentucky Catholic high school have endured media smears, death threats and character assassination. The media fueled furor over the incident at the national March for Life forced the school to shutter its doors for fear of violence against its students.
How could this happen in America? The blame rests squarely on the stoop shouldered news media. Journalists, a misnomer if there ever was one, jumped to conclusions based on their own biases and spread a false narrative about an incident involving the school kids, endangering their lives.
A small group of Covington Catholic High School youngsters were peacefully leaving the pro-life rally in Washington, D.C when a handful of black Hebrew Israelites and left-wing activists hurled insults at the students. In response, the students sang their school song, refusing the hateful bait.
Then a self-appointed Native American activist entered the fray, banging a drum and confronting one of the students. To his credit, the student only smiled without uttering a word. Within minutes, a video appeared on social media that exploded into bombastic news coverage by the media.
America's media, its reputation for fairness long ago shredded, based its reporting mostly on a snippet of video and the comments of Native American Nathan Phillips, who claimed to be a a Vietnam War veteran. News commentators inflamed passions by hastily condemning the kids.
Television reporters denounced the youngsters as bigots. Journalists called them "privileged" white elitists. Hollywood actors suggested they kids should be hunted down and punched in the face. Some on social media called for the youngsters to be killed.
Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar, an anti-Semite serving her first term in the U.S. Congress, tweeted: "The boys were protesting a woman's right to choose & yelled, "It's not rape if you enjoy it." They were taunting 5 Black men before they surrounded Phillips and led racist chants."
NBC called the incident "a troubling scene many are calling racist played out in Washington." CNN, the network no one should trust, described the scene as a "mob of MAGA hat-wearing high school students." An MSNBC news panelist compared the students to neo-Nazis.
USA Today featured an interview with Phillips, who belittled the youngsters as "beastly" and having a "mob mentality." The New York Times labeled the teenagers "racists" for mocking a veteran. The Washington Post lambasted the Catholic Church's sordid history of Native American abuses.
These choir boy-faced high school youths overnight became the most hated figures in America. Then the media story began to unravel. As more video surfaced of the incident near the Lincoln Memorial, it became obvious the teenagers were passive bystanders, not the aggressors.
No video evidence exists showing the kids shouting anything racist or mentioning rape. The adult sponsors accompanying the youngsters publicly discredited the media's version. A youth wearing the MAGA hat was interviewed and refuted the remarks that the activists claimed he made.
Why didn't the news media interview the sponsors and the youngsters before they rushed to judgment? The answer is obvious. There were not interested in the truth. They wanted to advance the narrative of MAGA hats being a symbol of bigotry. Their hatred for Trump was bared.
The Native American Philips was unmasked as a career provocateur who regularly shows up a protests, representing himself. He is not an Vietnam veteran as he claims. He served in the Marine Reserves, spending most of his time in sunny California instead of the steamy jungles of Vietnam.
A day after the confrontation Phillips disrupted mass at Washington's Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, beating his drum and marching down the aisles. Phillips is a trouble maker not a peacemaker. He is a charlatan. His real name is Nathaniel R. Stanard.
As the truth emerged, some media outlets tried to walk back the story in an attempt to salvage their tattered reputations. But too many newsrooms decided to just let the story fade away rather than apologizing to the school and the teenagers they ran roughshod over.
Beside the obvious malicious reporting, there are two recurring themes this incident illuminates. The first is the media has abandoned all pretense of being unbiased. Journalists are out to tarnish the president even if a falsehood has to be dressed up as legitimate news. It is shameful and indefensible.
The second is a virulent strain of anti-Catholicism is rising in the country. These youngsters were singled out because of their religion as much as for their alleged behavior. This bigoted religious bias also reared its ugly head during the confirmation of Justice Gorsuch and other Catholic judges.
The Covington Catholic High School recently reopened its doors to students. But the fallout from the media coverage of the pro-life rally will haunt these youngsters for the remainder of their lives. They have been permanently tarnished as extremists and racists. The stain will linger.
Meanwhile, the media will turn its attention to the next scandal, unconcerned about the damage its erroneous reporting inflicted on innocent young people. Polling shows Americans' trust in the media has sunk to an all-time low. In the current environment, it is a race to rock bottom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)