Economist Breaks It Down for Democrats, Explains Sheer Impossibility of ‘Medicare for All’

 Print

“If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.” That quote is attributed to satirist P.J. O’Rourke, but it just might end up being disturbingly prescient.

Not satisfied with already turning healthcare on its head through Obamacare, liberals are now floating their next plan for America: universal healthcare. A more accurate term is probably socialized medicine, but the left is trying to sell the idea to voters by dubbing it “Medicare for All.”

The idea is simple, at least at a glance. Take taxpayer-funded health coverage such as Medicare and just expand it, until every American has the same type of program as many senior citizens today.

But as conservatives know all too well, reality can get complicated. There is strong evidence that the latest liberal scheme would be riddled with problems — and one of the most troubling is the price tag.

During recent testimony in front of the House Rules Committee on Tuesday, respected economist Charles Blahous of George Mason University burst the Democrats’ bubble by delivering some harsh calculations about socialized medicine.

TRENDING: Watch: High School Student Spends 3 Solid Minutes Owning Liberal Governor to His Face

“Medicare for All would add somewhere between $32.6 trillion and $38.8 trillion in new federal budget costs over the first 10 years,” the economics expert explained to lawmakers in Washington.

For comparison, the entire U.S. national debt is currently $22 trillion, with no real plan on how to pay it back anytime soon.

“The $32.6 trillion estimate is a lower-bound estimate,” Blahous continued. “It essentially assumes every cost-containment provision in the bill saves as much as possible. If instead things play out more consistently with historical trends, the new federal costs would be closer to $38.8 trillion.”

Do you believe ‘Medicare for All’ is impossible?

Yes No
 

Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Most people can barely imagine a million dollars, let alone a billion or a trillion. In order to help legislators — and the public — wrap their heads around the massive cost of “Medicare for All,” the economist put it in terms that should make every taxpayer’s jaw drop.

“Obviously, such enormous numbers are very difficult to grasp,” he said. “We’re talking about 11 to 13 percent of our GDP in 2022, rising to 13 to 15 percent of GDP in 2031 being added to the federal ledger, and we simply do not have historical experience with permanent government expansions of this size.”

His next statement should provide a much-needed reality check for liberal socialists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“So to provide a sense of the magnitude, the study notes that doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income taxes would be insufficient to finance even the lower bound estimate of $32.6 trillion,” Blahous said, according to Independent Journal Review.

Re-read that sentence again, because it’s vitally important. Even if every income tax in America were doubled, a move that would cripple the economy, there still wouldn’t be enough money to pay for the liberal pipe dream.

RELATED: Parody Website with Damning Joe Biden Photos Hilariously Outranks His Official 2020 Website

Not that it will make much difference: Far-left Democrats seem to be little interested in the facts and numbers behind their proposals, but appear to be throwing any ideas available at the wall in the hopes that one will stick.

That’s exactly what we already saw with Ocasio-Cortez’s fantastical “Green New Deal,” which included such wild proposals as renovating every building in America and ending air travel to make way for trains. When pressed for details about how she intends to pay for such schemes, the former bartender repeatedly dodges the question.

Liberalism as practiced by figures like JFK and even Bill Clinton used to mean wanting government to be a bit bigger and more helpful, while still being conscious of economic limitations. Today, all deference to math and reality seems to have been tossed out the window by the left.

Source: Economist Breaks It Down for Democrats, Explains Sheer Impossibility of ‘Medicare for All’

Advertisements
Posted in Collectivism, economics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day: Revisiting Islam’s Greatest Slaughter of Christians | Faith

Armenian Christian civilians, escorted by armed Ottoman Muslim soldiers, are marched through Harput (known as Kharpert by Armenians, the kaza of the Mamuret-ul Aziz), to a prison in the nearby Mezireh (via Wikipedia)

Today, April 24, marks the “Great Crime,” that is, the genocide of Christians—mostly Armenians but also Assyrians—that took place under the Islamic Ottoman Empire throughout World War I.  Then, the Turks liquidated approximately 1.5 million Armenians and 300,000 Assyrians.

Most objective American historians who have studied the question unequivocally agree that it was a deliberate, calculated genocide:

More than one million Armenians perished as the result of execution, starvation, disease, the harsh environment, and physical abuse.  A people who lived in eastern Turkey for nearly 3,000 years [more than double the amount of time the invading Islamic Turks had occupied Anatolia, now known as “Turkey”] lost its homeland and was profoundly decimated in the first large-scale genocide of the twentieth century.  At the beginning of 1915 there were some two million Armenians within Turkey; today there are fewer than 60,000….  Despite the vast amount of evidence that points to the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide, eyewitness accounts, official archives, photographic evidence, the reports of diplomats, and the testimony of survivors, denial of the Armenian Genocide by successive regimes in Turkey has gone on from 1915 to the present.

Similarly, in 1920, U.S. Senate Resolution 359 heard testimony that included evidence of “[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death [which] have left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys, and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of this most colossal crime of all the ages.”

In her memoir, Ravished ArmeniaAurora Mardiganian described being raped and thrown into a harem (consistent with Islam’s rules of war).  Unlike thousands of other Armenian girls who were discarded after being defiled, she managed to escape. In the city of Malatia, she saw 16 Christian girls crucified: “Each girl had been nailed alive upon her cross,” she wrote, “spikes through her feet and hands, only their hair blown by the wind, covered their bodies.”  Such scenes were portrayed in the 1919 documentary film Auction of Souls, some of which is based on Mardiganian’s memoirs.

Whereas the genocide is largely acknowledged in the West, one of its primary if not fundamental causes is habitually overlooked: religion.  The genocide is usually articulated through a singularly secular paradigm, one that factors only things that are intelligible from a secular, Western point of view—such as identity and gender politics, nationalism, and territorial disputes. Such an approach does little more than project modern Western perspectives onto vastly different civilizations and eras.

War, of course, is another factor that clouds the true face of the genocide.  Because these atrocities mostly occurred during World War I, so the argument goes, they are ultimately a reflection of just that—war, in all its chaos and destruction, and nothing more.  But as Winston Churchill, who described the massacres as an “administrative holocaust,” correctly observed, “The opportunity [WWI] presented itself for clearing Turkish soil of a Christian race.”  Even Adolf Hitler had pointed out that “Turkey is taking advantage of the war in order to thoroughly liquidate its internal foes, i.e., the indigenous Christians, without being thereby disturbed by foreign intervention.”

It’s worth noting that little has changed; in the context of war in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, the first to be targeted for genocide have been Christians and other minorities.

But even the most cited factor of the Armenian Genocide, “ethnic identity conflict,” while legitimate, must be understood in light of the fact that, historically, religion accounted more for a person’s identity than language or heritage.   This is daily demonstrated throughout the Islamic world today, where Muslim governments and Muslim mobs persecute Christian minorities who share the same race, ethnicity, language, and culture; minorities who are indistinguishable from the majority—except, of course, for being non-Muslims, or “infidels.”

As one Armenian studies professor asks, “If it [the Armenian Genocide] was a feud between Turks and Armenians, what explains the genocide carried out by Turkey against the Christian Assyrians at the same time?”

Indeed, according to a 2017 book, Year of the Sword: The Assyrian Christian Genocide:

[The] policy of ethnic cleansing was stirred up by pan-Islamism and religious fanaticism.  Christians were considered infidels ( kafir).  The call to Jihad, decreed on 29 November 1914 and instigated and orchestrated for political ends, was part of the plan” to “combine and sweep over the lands of Christians and to exterminate them.”   As with the Armenians, eyewitness accounts tell of the sadistic eye-gouging of Assyrians and the gang rape of their children on church altars. According to key documents, all this was part of “an Ottoman plan to exterminate Turkey’s Christians.

To understand how the historic genocide of Armenians and Assyrians is representative of the modern-day plight of Christians under Islam, one need only read the following words written in 1918 by President Theodore Roosevelt; however, read “Armenian” as “Christian” and “Turkish” as  “Islamic,” as supplied in brackets:

the Armenian [Christian] massacre was the greatest crime of the war, and the failure to act against Turkey [the Islamic world] is to condone it… the failure to deal radically with the Turkish [Islamic] horror means that all talk of guaranteeing the future peace of the world is mischievous nonsense.

Indeed, if we “fail to deal radically” with the “horror” currently being visited upon millions of Christians around the Islamic world—which in some areas reached genocidal proportions—we “condone it” and had better cease talking “mischievous nonsense” of a utopian world of peace and tolerance.

Put differently, silence is always the ally of those who would liquidate the “other.”  In 1915, Adolf Hitler rationalized his genocidal plans, which he implemented some three decades later, when he rhetorically asked: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

And who among today’s major politicians speaks—let alone does anything—about the ongoing annihilation of Christians by Muslims, most recently (but not singularly) seen in the Easter Sunday church bombings of Sri Lanka that left over 300 dead?

Note: See author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, for more on Turks and Armenians — including how the first “genocide” of Armenians at the hands of Turks actually began one-thousand years ago, in the year 1019.  

Source: Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day: Revisiting Islam’s Greatest Slaughter of Christians | Faith

Posted in crime, gun control, Islam, Islam apologists, Jihad, rape, terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Melbourne news: Woman who lied about rape to get her boyfriend killed is jailed

A woman who lied about being raped to convince a friend to shoot dead the man she planned to marry has been jailed for 21 years.

Yu Tung Lo, 29, was found guilty by a jury in February of murdering Bacchus Marsh father Paul Hogan in 2016, after manipulating another former fiance to do the killing in May 2016.

Lo incited Daniel Duhovic to kill the 48-year-old, taking steps prosecutors described as “highly manipulative and totally dishonest”.

‘Tracey’ Lo arrives at the Supreme Court, where she was jailed for a minimum of 17 years for lying that her fiance had repeatedly raped her and threatened his own daughter. (AAP)

Justice Paul Coghlan today jailed Lo for a minimum 17 years.

He said Lo was overheard by multiple people in the weeks before Mr Hogan’s murder, saying she wanted him dead, including in a message to Duhovic.

“Don’t talk silly stuff,” he responded.

“Nah, I seriously want him dead,” she replied.

Lo also referred to Mr Hogan as “it” in the messages and told Duhovic Mr Hogan had beaten her, repeatedly raped her and threatened his daughter.

She was previously engaged to Duhovic, and she and Mr Hogan had met with a marriage celebrant the day before his murder.

They planned to marry so she could stay in Australia.

Paul Hogan’s mother Val Hogan weeps outside court after the sentencing. (9news)

On May 24, after alleging Mr Hogan had repeatedly attacked her, she contacted Duhovic and warned him to “be careful, he got witness”, then later “it’s leaving the house now with its witness”.

Lo directed Duhovic to where Mr Hogan was, in the back of a van.

Mr Hogan was shot in the head at point blank range.

Duhovic and Lo fled after the shooting. He took the gun to be cleaned and she wiped her phone history in a failed attempt to delete messages.

She went to hospital and was interviewed by police about her rape claims and alleged threats to kill her and her family in Hong Kong.

Lo denied knowing about Mr Hogan’s death.

“Very simply, you tried to lie your way out of your involvement in this crime,” the judge said.

Lo later admitted lying about never willingly having sex with Mr Hogan and about the last time she saw him, and pleaded guilty to perjury.

Justice Coghlan accepted the relationship was tumultuous but not that Lo was raped.

Outside court, Mr Hogan’s mother Val Hogan said the sentence was “not enough”.

“It will never get my son back, but it’s the best I could expect,” she said.

“I have worked tirelessly for three years hoping that she would get a big sentence because she was the ringleader, she lied so much.”

She finished her statement by thanking the court, and God.

© AAP 2019

Source: Melbourne news: Woman who lied about rape to get her boyfriend killed is jailed

Posted in crime, feminism, rape | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Boys’ campus trap: The danger of false accusations

MORE FROM:

KAROL MARKOWICZ

Karol Markowicz

In a piece on these pages this week, Naomi Schaefer Riley contemplates the warnings she will give her future college-bound daughter about the dangers to women on college campuses and the wisdom of not trusting anyone.

It was excellent advice — but it’s not just women who have to be careful at college.

As the mother of a young son, I, too, am starting to plan some advice — about the dangers to guys of false accusations of sexual abuse. It’s a real issue, and a scary one.

My message to my future college-bound son would be: Don’t expect anyone to give you the benefit of the doubt. The tale of the Rolling Stone piece about a gang-rape-that-wasn’t at a University of VirginiaPhi Kappa Psi fraternity party is a case in point.

The magazine’s big, splashy, graphic article led to protests, rallies and a shutdown of UVA’s fraternity system, even as the investigation was still ongoing. Yet the whole story soon began to fall apart as reporters questioned its plausibility. This week, police essentially cleared the UVA frat of the accusation.

As in the case of the Duke lacrosse team years ago, everyone simply accepted — with zero evidence — that the brothers of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity were rapists. They were guilty merely because of the accuser’s word. Never mind the boys’ claims of innocence.

My son will spend his life hearing from me that women are — or should be — equal to men, that “she can do anything you can do.” But when he gets to college, he’ll find out that’s not always the case.

In fact, men are held to higher standards than women — most notably, by the very women and “feminists” who demand equal treatment between the sexes.

Consider: If a man and woman are both drunk at college, the onus is almost certainly on him to head off any possible sexual interaction between them.

That they are both intoxicated does not matter: If he wakes up the next morning with regrets, her feelings may be hurt — but if she wakes up with regrets, he may soon find himself facing expulsion or maybe even jail.

It’s not right, and it’s not fair. The feminist in me hates that women are treated as less capable — less responsible for their actions — than men. As a mother who has a daughter as well as a son, I worry about what this says to each of them.

Yes, I’m going to push my son to be more responsible than the average 18-year-old kid on his own for the first time, and to watch out for these kinds of situations. I certainly hope he’ll never be anyone’s falsely accused target.

But telling him to “be careful” in this way doesn’t seem like enough. In fact, it feels very much like “blaming the victim.” Fact is, there is little to nothing the Phi Kappa Psi boys could have done to protect themselves. Has anyone even offered them an apology?

The UVA boys were failed by the university — and by all of us who uncritically believed the Rolling Stone story, simply because we hold men and women to different standards.

The boys deserved better. It’s time to treat guys and gals equally.

Source: Boys’ campus trap: The danger of false accusations

Posted in crime, feminism, Scandals, social | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Why states can’t prevent a runaway convention

By Publius Huldah

September 16, 2017

The danger of an Article V convention (which made James Madison “tremble,” caused Alexander Hamilton “dread,” and Chief Justice John Jay to say that another convention would impose an “extravagant risque“) is this: the delegates to the convention can run away: instead of proposing amendments to our existing Constitution, they can write a completely new Constitution with a new – and easier – mode of ratification. 1

The convention lobby implicitly acknowledges this danger when they say State Legislatures should pass “unfaithful delegate” laws to control delegates. 2

Accordingly, Wyoming passed a delegate law earlier this year which purports to empower the WY Legislature to “immediately recall” any delegate who makes an “unauthorized vote” at the convention, and to charge with a felony any delegate who fails to follow the WY Legislature’s instructions on what he may do at the convention. The Texas delegate law purports to make “invalid” any “unauthorized vote” at the convention, and to empower the TX Legislature to recall any delegate who violates his instructions. But Tennessee takes the cake with its delegate law: Not only does the TN law purport to “void” votes cast at the convention by TN delegates which are outside the instructions or limits placed on the delegates by the TN Legislature – and then to prosecute such delegates for a felony; the TN law also asserts that if all TN delegates vote or “attempt to vote” outside the scope of the instructions or limits, TN’s previously filed applications for an Article V convention are to be treated as “having no effect at all.” Other States have passed similar laws.

Such laws are contrary to our founding principles and are based on false assumptions. Accordingly, they are unenforceable and ineffective.

1. Self-evident Rights and the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence is the Fundamental Act of our Founding. 3 It declares that all men are created equal; our rights are bestowed by God; our rights are unalienable; and the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us.

The Declaration is not “law” – it is higher than law, for it sets forth The Divine Standard which a Constitution – and the laws made pursuant to the Constitution – must meet.

It also declares that a People have the self-evident right to throw off their government and set up a new one. With that principle firmly in mind, let’s look at our first amendments convention; and then, at State unfaithful delegate laws.

2. The federal convention of 1787

After our Revolution, we operated under our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation. But there were defects in the Articles, so on Feb. 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” The States also drafted instructions which purported to restrict delegates to proposing amendments.

But the delegates ignored their instructions and wrote a new Constitution [the one we now have]. In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), Madison invoked the Declaration of Independence and claimed, as justification for what they did,

    • “…the transcendent and precious right of the people to ‘abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness,’…”

 

Yet State unfaithful delegate laws claim a power to divest The Representatives of the People – and to criminally prosecute them for exercising what the Fundamental Act of our Founding declares is a “self-evident” right”!

3. And what if the delegates make their proceedings secret?

The State Legislators who vote for unfaithful delegate laws assume they will be able to know what is going on every minute of every day of the convention.

But Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) shows that on May 29, 1787, the delegates voted to make their proceedings secret.

If delegates to a convention today vote to make the proceedings secret, the States won’t know what is going on – and can’t stop it. And if delegates vote by secret ballot, the States would NEVER know who did what.

You might think that with cell phones & cameras, it’s impossible to have a secret meeting. But the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which “induces” State Legislators to push the COS application for an Article V convention, is experienced in conducting secret meetings with State Legislators. WATCH this 6.5 minute video of a Georgia TV crew which attempted to get into a meeting held at a Georgia hotel of ALEC and Georgia Legislators.

ALEC, which supports the COS application for an Article V convention, is funded by the Koch Brothers and other mega-corporations. The Koch Brothers spend vast sums on State politicians (e.g., Texas), to get their support for the COS application. Do the Kochs want an Article V convention so they can get a new Constitution which transforms us from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union? And if there is a convention, will armed guards keep the press out? If delegates have been bought by the Kochs, will they tweet & text to the world what they are up to behind closed doors?

4. State Legislatures are “creatures” of their State Constitutions, and have no “competent authority” to control The Representatives of The People at an Article V convention

Americans have forgotten a principle which is the basis of free government: That political power originates with The People. 4 The People create governments by means of constitutions. Since a government is the “creature” of its constitution, it can’t be superior to its Creator, The People.

This is why at the federal convention of 1787, where our present federal Constitution was drafted, our Framers understood that only The People were competent to ratify the new Constitution. George Mason said on July 23, 1787,

“…The [State] Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators….”

Keeping that principle firmly in mind, let’s look at Article V, U.S. Constitution.

It provides that when two-thirds of the State Legislatures (“mere creatures”) apply for it, Congress is to call a convention. At that point, it is out of the State Legislatures’ hands – the bell has tolled, and State Legislatures can’t un-ring it. Congress “calls” the convention (sets it up); but when it assembles, the delegates, as Sovereign Representatives of the People, are not answerable to State Legislatures (which are “mere creatures” of the State Constitution) or to Congress (which is a “mere creature” of the federal Constitution). The delegates actually have the power to eliminate the federal and state governments – and that isprecisely what the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America does.

Delegates to a federal convention called by the federal Congress, to perform the federal function of altering or replacing our federal Constitution, are performing a federal function, not a State function. The delegates don’t represent any government, federal or state. 5 They are supposed to represent The People; but in our corrupt time, they are more likely to represent the Koch Brothers (because theyhave the cash).

Dust off your copy of the federal Constitution we already have, read it and defend it. It filled all Europe with “wonder and veneration”. If you don’t do this, we will lose it.

Endnotes:

1 The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America creates a totalitarian dictatorship. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. It is ratified by a national referendum[national popular vote] (Art. XII, §1). Other proposed Constitutions are also waiting in the wings for a convention.

2 The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) claims their model delegate bill “will eliminate the possibility of a ‘runaway convention’ [–] the reason most often cited by scholars for their opposition to an Article V Convention.”

3 Dr. Alan Keyes spoke of this on the radio some years ago; and I knew he had just handed me the Key to understanding our Constitution.

4 See Federalist No. 22, last para (Hamilton).

5 The term “convention of states” is a misnomer which gives the false impression that States control the convention. In Rob Natelson’s speech on Sep. 16, 2010 [now removed from free access], he said he will no longer call it a “constitutional convention,” but will henceforth say “convention of states” (pg.1-2).

This Chart illustrates who has the power to do what at an Article V convention.

© Publius Huldah

Source: Why states can’t prevent a runaway convention

Posted in Constitution, Article V Convention | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Think Obama Administration Wasn’t Corrupt? Think Again | Investor’s Business Daily

Obama Scandal: Former President Obama and his political supporters have repeatedly stated that his administration was scandal-free, unlike administrations before and after. “We’re probably the first administration in modern history that hasn’t had a major scandal in the White House,” Obama himself said. A new book puts the lie to that statement.

Never mind that the left-leaning big media basically ignored major scandals during the Obama years, ranging from the IRS targeting scandal and the VA’s deadly waiting lists for veterans to Hillary Clinton’s illegal use of an unsecured, hackable home-brew server for her official duties as secretary of state and the Fast and Furious gunwalking program.

These and others were epic scandals that the media simply ignored or downplayed.

The media have contrasted Obama’s supposed honesty and forthrightness with President Trump’s supposed venality and political unscrupulousness, as embodied in the year-and-a-half long Russia-Trump scandal investigation that shows few signs of letting up.

But now comes Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Secret Empires: How Our Politicians Hide Corruption and Enrich Their Families and Friends,” which shows that the Obama administration and its cronies were up to their necks in questionable business deals and may even have intentionally distorted public policy to accommodate their own profit-making.

The book claims “Obama and his administration would deem industries either destructive to the environment or exploitative for the financial and professional gain of his friends, including industries such as coal mining, offshore drilling, cash advance companies, and for-profit colleges,”  wrote Katelyn Caralle of the Washington Examiner.

Schweizer’s book, based on extensive research, says that Obama acted to regulate certain industries in such a way that the regulations lowered the value of some of the companies, wrote Katelyn Caralle of the Washington Examiner. These actions let two family friends to profit handsomely on deals through their own investment firm.

Here’s how it worked: Obama buddies Marty Nesbitt and Harreld Kirkpatrick III formed a private equity investment firm called Vistria, right around the time Obama was re-elected in 2012.

Nothing wrong with that, except, as Schweizer notes in his book, “A curious pattern began to emerge. Obama and his administration would attack industries with government power, which led to substantially lower valuations for these companies. Nesbitt and Vistria, or others close to Obama, could then acquire those assets for pennies on the dollar.”

As an example, Schweizer cites the case of for-profit higher education schools like University of Phoenix, ITT Technical Institute, and DeVry University. In 2013, Obama blamed the schools for taking advantage of students by saddling them with massive amounts of student debt, ruining their credit and making a profit on it. He ordered the Federal Trade Commission to go after them.

In the case of the University of Phoenix, its parent Apollo Education Group was suspended after a Federal Trade Commission investigation in 2015. The following year, three companies, including Vistria, swooped in to buy what remained of Apollo at a price 90% below its share price before the investigation.

As Vistria’s education investment portfolio bulged, a number of Obama Education Department officials, including Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, ended up taking high-level jobs with Vistria.

That’s just one example. There are others.

Schweizer noted in his book, for instance, that both Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry were deeply involved in trade and security talks with China even as that country began its aggressive campaign to expand its military and physical presence in the South China Sea. Contrary to standard diplomatic practice, however, both played “good cop,” not seriously confronting China on its misbehavior.

Remember, Biden and Kerry were close friends from their years spent together in the Senate. So there was little surprise when Biden’s son, Hunter, and Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz, one of the heirs to the Heinz ketchup fortune, went into business together in 2009.

They created a number of equity and real estate investment firms allied to Rosemont Capital, “the alternative investment fund of the Heinz Family Office.”

So far so good. Except, “Over the next seven years, as both Joe Biden and John Kerry negotiated sensitive and high-stakes deals with foreign governments, Rosemont entities secured a series of exclusive deals with those same foreign governments.”

In December of 2013, for instance, Biden traveled to China for talks. He brought Hunter Biden along. While there, the senior Biden soft-pedaled China’s clear aggression, and played up the bilateral trade partnership. Ten days after the trip concluded, China’s central bank, the Bank of China, set up a $1 billion investment joint venture called Bohai Harvest RST. For the record, the “RS” referred to Biden’s son’s firm, Rosemont Seneca.

That’s questionable enough.

But months later, in July 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to China, also for talks. Kerry talked little of China’s clear aggression, but did conspicuously note that “China and the United States represent the greatest economic alliance trading partnership in the history of humankind.”

He should know. In the ensuing months, Chinese government-linked firms took major stakes in several of the firms owned or controlled by Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz, and provided them with massive funding totaling billions of dollars. Nor is this the only scandal involving John Kerry.

And this just scratches the surface. The book is a catalog, a virtual roadmap, to the way corrupt business gets done in Washington — and why Americans are smart to question why their representative go to Washington as paupers, and return as millionaires.

We can only hope that as Biden or Kerry gears up for a challenge to Trump in the 2020 presidential contest, they will receive the same relentless scrutiny that a Republican with the same record of venality would get. But we won’t hold our breath.

Source: Think Obama Administration Wasn’t Corrupt? Think Again | Investor’s Business Daily

Posted in Barrack Obama, corruption, crime, Foreign Policy, Government related, Obama, Politics, Scandals | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Dallas: Criminal Insanity 

What happens when a prosecutor goes over to the dark side?

Dallas DA John Creuzot

Democrats/socialists reflexively support that which harms America, and that which provides them with greater power while diminishing individual rights.  One persistent example is their embrace of criminals, mostly minority criminals, and particularly Black criminals.  They do this not because they love Black people, or Hispanics for that matter.  Recall what happened when President Trump called their bluff?  They were all for sanctuary cities and states, declaring such virtue signaling truly American, but when they might have to actually accept and pay for those illegal immigrants, when illegals could be living in their neighborhoods, they went berserk, calling President Trump un-American for adopting their policy.  Their policies are for everyone else, not them.

They are the champions of immigrants only because without immigrants voting as monolithic blocks for Democrats, they will never again win a presidential election.  Once they win, they ignore them, until it’s election time again, when promises of free stuff and cries of racism and nativism against their opponents might once again do the trick.  There is some evidence this—minority voters being fooled by Democrat lies–may be changing, but it’s still the dominant reality.

Just that sort of cynical, socialist calculation is now on display in Dallas, TX, as The Blaze.com reports:

Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot has stolen some of the political oxygen in the city, and the state in general, with his new reform measures, even with all the national news going on. But that small theft wouldn’t be prosecuted by his office these days: They don’t do that anymore.

Creuzot, a Democrat, has angered local and state officials, and importantly police unions, with his decree that his office will no longer be prosecuting what he has non-technically referred to as ‘low-level’ crimes. As a recent Dallas Morning News op-ed put it, ‘shook’ the people tasked with law enforcement and government. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say he hasthem ‘shook.’

Creuzot is determined to end ‘mass incarceration,’ and won’t prosecute “technical violations” that aren’t a threat to public safety:

‘…he’s already dismissed more than 1,000 drug possession cases since taking office this year.’

Here’s some of his reasoning, if it can be so classified:

First-Offense Marijuana Although African Americans and people of other races use marijuana at similar rates, in Dallas County African Americans are three times more likely to be prosecuted for misdemeanor marijuana possession than are people of other races. After arrest, African Americans are assessed money bond at a higher rate for marijuana possession, and are assessed higher bond amounts than other races. African Americans are more likely to be convicted of marijuana possession once charged and are more likely to serve a jail sentence.

What’s going on is the old and dishonest Democrat reliance on unexamined statistical disparity to justify their preferred, but indefensible, policies. Black people in major cities like Dallas commit most of the crimes, but aren’t most of the population.  This can only mean that Dallas is systemically racist, so to address this racism, and reduce incarceration rates, black people must be made immune from arrest.  The facts of the offenses they actually commit, and the damage done their victims, matter not at all when social justice is involved.  Even Democrats can’t magically stop criminals from committing crimes, so the next best thing is to allow them to commit crimes unpunished, which produces the desired statistics and vindicates their circular, can-never-be-wrong, policies.

The District Attorney must take action to end that disparity. To that end, I have declined prosecution on misdemeanor possession of marijuana cases for first-time offenders whose offenses do not occur in a drug-free zone, involve the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon, or involve evidence of delivery. After the first offense, people will be offered a program that, if successfully completed, will keep their record clear. I am also in the process of dismissing all pending misdemeanor marijuana cases filed before I took office, according to the new policy stated above. To date, I have dismissed over a thousand misdemeanor marijuana cases.

Only a thousand?

Also on the no-prosecution docket are some petty theft cases of less than $750, except in cases where the object was financial gain.

Theft of Necessary Items Study after study shows that when we arrest, jail, and convict people for non-violent crimes committed out of necessity, we only prevent that person from gaining the stability necessary to lead a law-abiding life. Criminalizing poverty is counter-productive for our community’s health and safety. For that reason, this office will not prosecute theft of personal items less than $750 unless the evidence shows that the alleged theft was for economic gain.

Other items include not prosecuting criminal trespass or driving with a suspended license, and no jail time for “technical” violations of probation.

credit: kxan.com

Well, if “study after study” says so, it must be true!  Correct me if I’m lacking in the kind of sophistication Creuzot so obviously possesses, but don’t criminals leave victims in their wake?  In all my years in law enforcement, I came across a mere handful that stole out of necessity, and when we found such people, we did everything we could to help them.  Cigarettes, consumer electronics and booze are hardly the necessities of life, yet they were among the most commonly stolen items.  It seems obvious stealing the property of others is an economic loss for them, and an economic gain for the crook.

Criminals do not trespass with angelic intent, and ignoring people whose driving is so dangerous their licenses are suspended is the very definition of a threat to the health and safety of the community.  It’s also worthwhile to recall that people on probation are usually known and prolific criminals, and the rules set for their probation are designed not only to try to keep them straight, but to reduce the number of people they victimize.  That too sounds like a health and safety issue, but what do I know?  I’m surely not nearly as woke as Creuzot.

‘Criminalizing poverty is counter-productive for our community’s health and safety.”?!  Normal Americans are so unsophisticated as to believe it is crime, including theft, which is damaging to a community’s health and safety.  They also believe, as Creuzot so obviously does not, that the primary benefit of incarcerating criminals is they are not damaging the health and safety of honest people—even the poor, most of whom are not criminals—when they’re behind bars.  To victims of crimes, the race of the criminals is decidedly secondary to the damage criminals do them.

Letting criminals commit crimes unpunished will enable them to gain “the stability necessary to lead a law-abiding life”?!  On the contrary, it will confirm in them the certainty that crime pays, and non-criminals are suckers for living a law-abiding life.  Hasn’t Creuzot ever actually talked with criminals?  I mean, other than his deputies and supporters?

As rational people might imagine, the police, being sworn to enforce the law and all, aren’t supportive of Creuzot.  Unsophisticated too, they actually think Creuzot’s non prosecution of theft will badly damage small business—particularly that in minority neighborhoods—will decrease health and safety, and will encourage more, and more serious, crime.  My experience certainly bears that out.  To his credit, Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings is not supportive of Creuzot, but not in strong terms.  Governor Abbott, however, is on track with reality:

Gov. Greg Abbott, credit: texastribune.org

Gov. Greg Abbott, too, has joined in the condemnation, telling Dallas NBC affiliate KXAS that the plan is “reckless and irresponsible.”

‘That is legalizing stealing for property less than $750. What kind of message does that send for one, but for another, listen if your district attorney wants to change the law he is in the wrong job. He needs to run for the legislature and come here to try and change the law,’ said the governor. ‘His job, his oath, is to enforce the law that exists and he should prosecute anybody for stealing anything.

This is a very important point. It is impossible to enforce every law, which is why Democrats love to make more and more of them (OK, so some Republicans arethat stupid too).  The police and prosecutors must allocate their resources, use professional discretion, but Abbott is right.  By invalidating entire classes of law vitally important to public order, and by refusing to protect private property, he acts as a dishonestly elected super legislature rather than a prosecutor.  He represents not the people of Dallas, but the criminals of Dallas.

As one might expect, The Dallas Morning News gave Creuzot a tongue bath:

Creuzot is also leading the state in addressing problems in our probation system in a way that will reduce probation officer caseloads and free scant resources to help those that need it the most. He is addressing the disparity in enforcement of marijuana possession by declining to prosecute first-time offenses and by offering alternative programs for subsequent cases. As his statement notes, despite similar rates of use with their white peers, African-Americans are more likely to be prosecuted, assessed bail, convicted and given a jail sentence for marijuana possession. Creuzot’s policy will help more people avoid senseless, stigmatizing criminal convictions.

Which they can most effectively do by not committing crimes. Being poor is also not a cause of criminal behavior.  People are often poor because of their own bad choices, crime among them.  The police don’t know who’s poor.  Criminals don’t wear flashing neon signs advertising their net worth so that the police may more easily discriminate by arresting the less well off.  Senselessness derives from people’s foolish, self-defeating actions, not the actions of the police in enforcing the law.  Criminals should be stigmatized.  Doesn’t Creuzot know anything about human nature?

Even in a state like Texas, which is mostly governed by sane people, the larger cities like Houston, Austin, and Dallas are infected with social justice.  It’s not quite as virulent as in other portions of the country, but it’s not for a lack of socialist effort.  It will be interesting to see if this idiocy will be corrected by rational citizens of Dallas, including the poor, who bear the inequity of being the primary, and most numerous, victims of the criminals living among them, criminals usually of the same race.

Source: Dallas: Criminal Insanity | Stately McDaniel Manor

Posted in crime, legal, liberals, Racism, Victim Culture | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment
%d bloggers like this: