Even in a snowsuit, Sloan's already got the keeping balanced under control...
A new CBO report, "Federal Subsidies for Health Insurance Coverage for People Under Age 65: 2016 to 2026," reveals yet another prevarication on the part of Democrats in their haste to pass Obamacare.
Remember President Obama stating on many occasions: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it"?
What wasn't being said is that millions of workers will be forced to leave employer-sponsored health plans because Obamacare will cause small- and medium- sized companies (the engine of American economic growth) not to offer coverage because a cheaper government-subsidized alternative is available as is Medicaid (for those who qualify).
This outcome is exactly what the Democrats wanted: To put more Americans on the federal government's dole.
According to the CBO report:
The report also notes:
Here's what the report means for the 2016 election cycle: When it comes to healthcare, as more and more folks are on the federal dole and more folks are likely to jump on board as employer-sponsored healthcare plans become increasingly expensive, Republican calls to repeal and replace Obamacare are likely to receive an icy reception.
Could it be that "Speaker Pelosi" is warming up her gavel for a second tour to dole out more and more "free" goodies?
Let the discussion begin...
To read the CBO report, click on the following link:
Health, environment, and energy independence all wrapped up all in one:
Could be a global game changer!
Researchers at the University of Alberta (Canada) have found that the health benefits of resveratrol—a compound found in red wine—are similar to those provided by exercise.
The improvements? Resveratrol in red wine improves physical performance, heart function, and muscle strength similar to the way as they're improved after a workout in the gym.
That’s great news.
Of course, this finding raises the all-important question: Each day, should I raise a good sweat in the gym or raise a glass of some good red wine before bed?
Other research has indicated that adults who drink 1 glass of red wine daily are less likely to develop dementia or cancer, have healthier hearts, age more slowly, and have better blood sugar levels. Blueberries, peanut butter, red grapes, and dark chocolate have also been demonstrated to increase the level of resveratrol in the body.
Hmmm….that’s not newsworthy, as it’s old news.
But, the new data--superadded to the old data--raise an important, binary question: The gym or a glass of red wine, some blueberries and red grapes followed up by a piece of dark chocolate?
What a great bedtime snack!
The lead researcher, Jason Dyck, doesn’t quite share The Motley Monk’s enthusiasm. Dyck believes these findings are of particular import for those who are physically unable to exercise. For them, Dyck says, "Resveratrol could mimic exercise for them or improve the benefits of the modest amount of exercise that they can do.”
One other drawback to the findings: The study was carried out on rats, not humans.
Still…how about that bedtime snack?
Let the discussion begin…
To read the websites identified in this post, click on the following links:
The radical Left: How to use the nation's public schools to produce an intolerant, exclusive, and undiverse people...
People of moral sensibility might find it difficult to believe the ends to which the radical Left is willing to go to silence their ideological opponents. After all, the radical Left claims that its members are ever so “tolerant,” “inclusive,” and “diverse.”
Over at Crisis magazine, a now-retired public middle school social studies teacher, Tom McLaughlin, details just how intolerant, exclusive, and undiverse the radical Left really is.
In an excerpt from his forthcoming memoir discussing his career as a New England schoolteacher, McLaughlin details the radical Left’s ever-increasing militancy. The focus: The radical Left’s homosexual agenda that made its first incursion into the Fryeburg, Maine, public school district in 1979 and what McLaughlin endured until his retirement in 2011.
At first, McLaughlin and his co-teacher (the school nurse who was a conservative, Catholic woman and a widow) taught about the AIDS epidemic, emphasizing abstinence and monogamy within marriage. Fast forward to the 1980s and 1990s when the “gay liberation movement,” “gay pride,” AIDS, the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, and ACT-UP coalesced into a very powerful political faction that steered government money aimed at finding a cure for AIDS and formulating a strategy to prevent AIDS from spreading into other areas that would promote the radical Left’s agenda.
In McLaughlin’s estimation, the goal was to separate AIDS and homosexuality in the public’s mind. In this regard, public schools were critical. All the radical Left had to do was to cow public school boards to introduce what McLaughlin rightly calls “outrageous sex education strategies” into the curriculum—strategies the members of those boards would never have considered otherwise.
That strategy forced the radical Left’s agenda directly into McLaughlin’s world as a public school teacher. McLaughlin notes:
I tried my best to oppose the politically correct strictures that accompanied any discussion of AIDS. Ultimately though, there was little I could do but watch with dismay as the gay juggernaut rolled over public schools—and me—for almost three decades.
After some investigation, McLaughlin discovered how
…pressure from activists who put furtherance of their political/sexual agenda ahead of protecting public health….[and] [l]earning that the Democrat Party had been complicit throughout the process further accelerated my political evolution from left to right. It also motivated me to write about the subject as a columnist.
McLaughlin’s columns soon made him the target of LGBT activists who used ad hominem attacks, charging him with “homophobia,” “hatred,” and “bigotry.” Titling one column, “I’m Not Homophobic; I’m Homoexasperated,” McLaughlin pointed out how the nation and its public schools were being used to spread the radical Left’s propaganda with the goal of indoctrinating students into accepting specific sexual practices that present the greatest danger of transmitting HIV—like anal sex—and proposing to students sexual conduct they could engage in that would be less likely to spread AIDS, such as mutual masturbation.
McLaughlin—as any morally sensible person should be—was appalled. From a political perspective, the goal wasn’t to teach these matters in Maine’s public schools (although they were being taught in Massachusetts’ public schools). No, the goal was to de-sensitize students to the topics—like “fisting” and “rimming”--so those topics would seem “normal” to today’s students who, as tomorrow’s adults, would be accepting and tolerant of such conduct.
All the while, the radical Left was using public funds to define deviancy down, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan would describe it.
And that was just the beginning, as the decades of the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s evidence this contagion spreading, if not metastasizing.
Meanwhile, the radical Left continued attacking McLaughlin for “poisoning young minds with homophobia” and calling him “unfit to be a teacher.” When letters to the editor didn’t cow McLaughlin into silence, the radical Left put pressure on school boards and administrators. Then, they used the courts.
For his part, McLaughlin writes that he “endured it all until my retirement in 2011.”
Don’t be fooled. For the radical Left, this is what passes for tolerance, inclusion, and diversity, not just in public education but also in so-called higher education.
Let the discussion begin…
To read Tom McLaughlin’s article over at Crisis magazine, click on the following link:
Sometimes, a banana isn't just a banana, especially when the person looking at it possesses insight.
16-year-old Elif Bilgin had insight into how to turn banana peels into a non-decaying bioplastic. Perhaps her discover will assist in reducing the need for petroleum-based plastics.
From the “Law of unintended consequences” file: Title IX allows for dating among college athletics teammates…
When Title IX became law, it was hailed by its proponents as a “giant step forward” for women’s athletic programs, leveling the playing field by banning discrimination based upon sex. At issue was the disparity between how men’s and women’s athletic teams were being funded.
But now, that giant step forward appears to have some real-world consequences that Title IX advocates never envisioned.
Most college coaches have rules governing their teams, like banning inappropriate relationships. For example, an assistant coach at Prairie View A&M University (PVA&M) was recently fired for having an inappropriate relationship with a player.
Makes sense, no?
However, PVA&M’s women’s basketball coach, Dawn Brown, had a rule that her players may not have non-professional relationship with each other, coaches, managers, trainers, or any others affiliated with the team. Everybody…no if’s, and’s, or but’s about it.
“Had a rule” in that Brown took her cue from the firing of that assistant coach, after receiving clearance from Ashley Robinson, PVA&M’s Athletic Director and Title IX officer. Brown enforced her rule, removing 2 players during the season for dating each other.
The 2 players claimed that’s discrimination based upon sexual orientation, a clear violation of Title IX. Apparently, Brown had other disciplinary problems with the duo.
What did enforcing her rule cost Brown?
At a meeting last Monday, Robinson asked Brown to resign. She refused. Again, on Tuesday, Robinson asked Brown to resign. Again, she refused, accepting termination so that she could appeal. Brown said:
I felt that the University was going to take some form of action for the misadvising that they've given. I was thinking we were going to have the right to appeal before any decision, before any punishment was going to be given. I wasn't given that opportunity to be able to appeal it.
Brown believes administrators at PVA&M are focusing upon the allegations instead of the fact that she was advised and given approval to enforce her rule.
While that may be true, what those administrators are really focused upon is one of the unintended consequences of Title IX. Namely, Title IX can be used to support romantic and sexual relationships among same-sex teammates.
That certanly isn't what the proponents of Title IX had in mind. But, it may very well be one unintended consequence they are celebrating.
Is this a preview of coming attractions? As in, “coming to a Catholic college near you”?
Let the discussion begin…
To access the website identified in this post, click on the following link:
Dr. Sam Van Aken of Syracuse University created a single tree that grows 40 different kinds of seed-bearing fruit, including peaches, nectarines, apricots, almonds and more. Here's how Dr. Van Aken does it:
Pretty amazing, no?
Try all they want, Easter teaches that people can put truth into a grave, but it won't remain interred. Life is more than physical and mortal: It's also spiritual and timeless.
A blessed Easter to all who follow The Motley Monk!
Watch UCLA gymnnast Sophina DeJesus whip, dab and hit the quan in the dopest gymnastics routine ever:
The intrepid and erstwhile pro-life force at the United Nations (UN), Austin Ruse, is seeking 50k+ signatures to stop the proposed global UN tax for abortion.
Global statists—those seeking to establish a one-world government—have for a very long time advocated a global tax on financial transactions (GTFT), called “The Tobin Tax.”
GTFT would tax every international financial transaction, including when travelers exchange money. In turn, those tax $$$s would provide UN bureaucrats an independent revenue stream to fund the UN and its programs. Establishing GTFT would achieve the UN bureaucrats’ long-term goal: To free themselves from dependence upon the nations funding them and to establish their dominance in global affairs. In short, to end the era of nation-states and a one-world government.
GTFT is also part of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the largest development program in history. The cost? Trillions of $$$s that would be funded by GTFT.
As Ruse rightly notes, GTFT should be called the “global tax on abortion.” Why? GTFT would fund UN programs that promote abortion and “various forms of the family.” GTFT would also make it possible for the UN to compel Christian countries to legalize abortion or liberalize existing laws restricting abortion.
This May, GTFT is on the agenda of the World Humanitarian Summit that will bring government leaders to Istanbul, Turkey. Hence, Ruse is asking those who support the pro-life cause to sign a petition. The petition will be presented to UN policy makers in Fall 2016. It will also be presented to members of the US Congress.
Those who would like to do a little extra in support of this cause can send this link (www.c-fam.org/stop-un-global-tax) to the folks listed in their addressbooks.
As of this morning—March 26, 2016—about ~19k signatories have joined the cause.
Let the discussion begin...
To learn about Austin Ruse's work over at C-Fam or to make a contribution to the organization, click on the following link:
After 36+ years in ministry, Pastor T.D. Jakes continues to be a leading voice of innovation, inspiration, and influence in preaching the gospel today.
In this video, Pastor Jakes weighs in on the Steve Harvey Show to extend a hand of help to the needy, heart of compassion to the hurting, and message of inspiration to the disenfranchised so they don't end up entrapped in the "culture of victimology":
The Motley Monk offers a former student--Kristen Ross O'Connor--a "Tip of the Hat" for alerting The Motley Monk to this video.
In a post titled “Catholic culture wars: The soap opera at Marquette University continues...” and dated February 5, 2015, The Motley Monk opined concerning the case of Marquette University (MU) professor of political science, John McAdams.
In a blog post, The Motley Monk detailed how the professor accused a Philosophy teaching assistant of allowing her political beliefs to stifle classroom discourse concerning so-called “homosexual marriage.” McAdams wrote that the teaching assistant, by not allowing a prolonged discussion, was “using a tactic typical among liberals,” in which opinions they disagree with “are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up.”
For that observation, McAdams was informed by the MU’s Dean of Arts and Sciences that “Marquette University is commencing the process to revoke your tenure and to dismiss you from the faculty.”
Why? Simply for having the audacity to voice his concern about the way the concept of social justice is communicated and typically understood at MU and, worse yet, for identifying by name one of the players in that game of politically correct, yet neither inclusive nor tolerant classroom speech. And, in this instance, McAdams wasn’t interested in allowing that teaching assistant to limit the exercise of free speech when it comes to Catholic teaching about marriage.
Well, on this account, McAdams and MU are back in the news.
Yesterday—Holy Thursday—an MU announcement stated that MU’s President accepted a faculty panel recommendation that an unspecified “punishment” be imposed upon McAdams. The President wrote:
Today, I want you to know that after significant personal deliberation, I have decided to formally implement the Faculty Hearing Committee’s unanimous recommendation. While I cannot provide specific details of the recommendation because it relates to a personnel matter, I can assure you that my decision has been guided by Marquette University’s values and is solely based on Professor McAdams’ actions, and not political or ideological views expressed in his blog.
McAdams’ lawyer filled in some of the details:
McAdams’ lawyer also said that the faculty panel never recommended the required apology, adding that McAdams is highly unlikely to apologize. The lawyer called this requirement "self-abasement and compelled speech."
In a statement, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty which represents McAdams, noted:
Today, the university ignored that its almost 16-month suspension of Dr. McAdams was improper. The [faculty] committee found that Marquette had improperly suspended Dr. McAdams in violation of his due process rights under the Faculty Statutes and disagreed with the university’s desire to terminate him. It did recommend that he be suspended for one to two semesters, with benefits, but without pay. In its lengthy report, the Faculty Hearing Committee gave lip service to academic freedom but made it subject to a multifactor after-the-fact balancing test that would leave members of the university with no real guidance or protection other than the sufferance of their colleagues. In other words, university faculty retain freedom of speech only so far as their colleagues are willing to tolerate it.
Could it possibly be true that those who are trying to make the nation’s Catholic universities more inclusive and diverse are so radically conservative that they want to shut down free expression and supress the other side of the discussion?
Always remember the dictum: “There’s nothing more conservative than a radical liberal.”
Professor McAdams posted has learned this lesson the hard way and, to rub salt into the wound, those who think free speech means disrupting anyone or any group they happen to disagree with are making him pay for it.
Marquette University’s administrators are sponsoring the equivalent of a Trump Rally. But in this instance, it’s those administrators who are the carnival barkers.
Let the discussion begin…
To access the websites identified in this post, click on the following links:
From the "Those who worship at the altar of environmentalism" file: The law of unintended consequences strikes again...
Those who worship at the altar of environmentalism are sounding again a clarion call. This time, it’s for whales.
For a very long time the stormy petrels have argued that Navy sonar hurts the inner ears and sonar organs of whales, disorienting and causing whales to beach themselves and….omigosh…die.
Yes, it’s all the Navy’s fault. Their sonar is waging war on poor, defenseless whales. And, there is some evidence to support this.
But, the stormy petrels aren’t interested in assigning responsibility the other natural phenomena—seaquakes, underwater volcanic eruptions, and meteorites crashing into the oceans—that are the more likely causes of whale beachings throughout history. And the stormy petrels are 100% silent when it comes to another demonstrated unnatural cause, one which happens to be one of their pet projects: Renewable energy sources.
It seems that those 540-foot-tall wind turbines—the ones located on land—are responsible for the ruthless and savage murder of thousands of innocent members of the phylum anamalia chordata and class ave. In other words…omigosh…innocent B.I.R.D.S.--eagles and bats—are being brutalized by this form of renewable energy!
But now, it has been revealed, those turbines—the ones located in water—are driving innocent members of the phylum animalia chordata and class delphinidae orcinus orca mad. So mad, in fact…omigosh…they are committing suicide.
Unlike Navy sonar, wind turbine noise and infrasound are nearly constant, last as long as the turbines are in place and come from multiple directions. Moreover, sound waves travel much farther underwater and, as scientists have noted:
It is likely that acoustic masking by anthropogenic sounds is having an increasingly prevalent impact on animals’ access to acoustic information that is essential for communication and other important activities, such as navigation and prey/predator detection.
Why have the stormy petrels gone silent and why is President Obama pushing for even more wind turbines? Doesn’t he care about the delphinidae orcinus orca?
According to Paul Driessen and Mark Duchamp, between January 9 and February 4, 2016, 29 sperm whales got stranded and died on English, German, and Dutch beaches. Those who worship at the altar of environmentalism and their propagandists in the mainstream media offered several explanations. For example, the Guardian reported: “The North Sea acts as a trap....It’s virtually impossible for [whales] to find their way out through the narrow English Channel.”
The trouble is, they overlooked the most obvious and likely explanation: Offshore wind farms...like the one located at the Firth of Forth (or, in The Three Stooges, “The Forth of Firth”). The area where those whales committed suicide has the largest concentration of offshore wind turbines on the globe.
The Daily Mail article was more honest in its assessment:
…researchers at the University of St. Andrews have found that the noise made by offshore wind farms can interfere with a whale’s sonar, and can in tragic cases see them driven onto beaches where they often die.
Driessen and Duchamp ask:
Do we really want to add marine mammals to the slaughter of birds and bats, by expanding this intermittent, harmful, enormously expensive and heavily subsidized energy source in marine habitats?
Apparently, those heartless and cruel wizards of smart as well as the folks who worship at the altar of environmentalism do.
Why aren’t they decrying the fact that wind turbines are exempt from endangered species and other laws that are applied to and even criminalize every other industry?
Let the discussion begin...
To access the websites identified in this post, click on the following link:
Way back in 1966—yes, this is the 50th anniversary year—James Coleman and his colleagues produced a report that rocked the foundations of the public school establishment.
Called the Coleman Report but titled “Equality of Educational Opportunity,” the 700-page document contained evidence and presented the argument that the amount of school funding doesn’t correlate much positively with student achievement. Socio-economic status, especially an intact, nuclear family, positively correlates with student achievement.
The stormy petrels—teachers’ union bosses, teachers in those unions, and Democrat politicians who have been and continue to be paid off by both—went berserk. They also won the argument…to the tune of $2T taxpayers’ $$$ over the past 5 decades.
But, the war isn’t over.
The Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Sanford University, Eric Hanushek, commemorated the anniversary by replicating the study.
Guess what? Hanuskeck found that very little, if anything has changed. All of those increases in per-student spending over the past 5 decades continue to correlate negatively with changes in 4th-grade student achievement in reading. The same goes for both math and reading at the 8th-grade level.
So much for the claim that more and more taxpayer $$$s will lead to higher achievement.
However, the stormy petrels aren’t backing down. The Motley Monk would observe that they’re like what those who worship at the altar of environmentalism call “climate change deniers.” Only in this instance, they’re “school reform” deniers. Yet, their efforts to increase school spending continue.
When will taxpayers finally wake up to the scam and put an end to this injustice to the nation’s young people, especially those in the nation’s inner cities?
Let the discussion begin…
To access the links identified in this post, click on the following links:
Ever heard of the “Rainbow Catholics in Christ”?
It’s an LGBT+ group in Evansville, IN, whose members have been provided a “safe space” by St. Mary’s Parish for the past 12 years. The Courier & Post quotes a parishioner who said the group has operated in the parish “with the knowledge and consent of multiple pastors.” St. Mary’s enjoyed what one group member has called a “progressive and ecumenical reputation.”
That is, until the Reverend Gordan Mann was recently appointed pastor. At meeting in February, Fr. Mann told the group they were “no longer welcome to exist” at St. Mary’s.
Harsh? Not compassionate? Homophobic? Not inclusive? How about anti-biblical? One parishioner who supports the group noted:
...everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love. (1 John 4: 7-8)
Fr. Mann told the group they could stay, but under one condition: The group had conform to the approved Catholic model used by the Church-approved group Courage/Encourage.
The Rainbow Catholics at St. Mary’s wouldn’t comply.
The group’s leader, Wally Paynter, told the Courier & Press that what Courage/Encourage requires—to live according to Catholic moral teaching, to be chaste, to be dedicated to Catholic spirituality including frequent reception of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, and to provide a good example to inspire others struggling with same-sex attraction—causes “spiritual and psychological harm.”
So, Fr. Mann booted the group. At least that’s how its members felt.
Dealing with the alleged snub, Kelley Coures—a Jew who is the Executive Director of Evansville’s Department of Metropolitan Development--said to the Courier & Press:
The group has an option to go and find a place that wants them and will celebrate them. They have an opportunity to grow into something else, but I'd hate for them to lose their Catholic identity.
Yes, they do have that option. But, is that what religion is about? To make people to feel wanted and celebrated? Isn’t faithfully presenting the truth of Scripture and Church teaching aimed at getting all people to the ends of the Earth to convert from sin?
Then, too, fearing the loss of their group’s members’ Catholic identity? Doesn’t that assume the group’s members self-identified with Church teaching in the first place? Difficult as it is for anyone to live up to the truth Scripture and Church teaching presents 100% of the time, isn’t identifying with Scripture and Church teaching how one develops a Catholic identity?
John Radez, a member of the group, feels disappointed and hurt. Having been raised Catholic, Radez had found a home in the group and at St. Mary’s. He said:
By pushing people away from the table, marginalizing people, the church is missing a golden opportunity to minister….Which is completely contradictory to what Christ would have done. He invited all of the sinners to the table.
Scripture and Church teaching invite sinners to the table, to participate fully in the life of the Church, and to go and sin no more. Authentic religion is about conversion—“metanoia”—namely, the change of mind required to live in obedience to God. This liberates people from sin and it surely doesn’t cause “spiritual and psychological harm.”
As of now, the group has found a new “safe space” at the St. Lucan United Church of Christ where the group’s members will hopefully feel wanted and celebrated.
Let the discussion begin…
To read the websites identified in this post, click on the following link:
Preparing for the 2016 general election, The Motley Monk has come across a book the verteran liberal reporter of all things European and an avowed peacenik, Diana Johnstone, has authored. The Motley Monk thinks the book is well worth reading.
Inspired by the Libyan catastrophe as well as the mounting danger of war with Russia, Johnstone titled her book “Queen of Chaos.” The book has absolutely nothing to do with Maxwell Smart. The antagonist is Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC).
Remember in the recent Democratic presidential nomination debate HRC opining about her important leadership role in instigating the war against Libya? Having read Queen of Chaos, it’s obvious to The Motley Monk that HRC didn’t state that she and her advisors initially had planned to use the little military foray to provide the keystone of a “Clinton doctrine”—a “smart power” regime change strategy--called “responsibility to protect” (or R2P).
R2P provides the organizing principle of Hillary’s foreign policy for her presidential campaign, as Johnstone’s basic proposition is that HRC and her handlers have painstakingly groomed HRC to be the “Woman War President.” Seeking to be an American equivalent of Lady “Margaret the Great” Hatcher of England, HRC will use her record as Secretary of State to demonstrate in the 2016 presidential general campaign that she is well-prepared to lead the United States, especially when it comes to launching drones against the nation’s enemies or, if need be, to launching World War III.
War creates chaos, Johnstone notes, but securing a stable peace is war’s goal…think the Marshall Plan. But, for those who take a very close look, all that remains for the people who have been left behind in the wake of HRC’s “foreign policy experience” is chaos.
In the chapter, “Libya: A War of Her Own,” Johnstone details how she arrived at her conclusion concerning the Queen of Chaos. Johnstone portrays HRC as demonstrating dangerously poor judgment when it comes to waging war in what formerly was the richest nation on the African continent.
In Johnstone’s mind, the Libyan disaster proved to most of the world—although not to Hillary—that R2P is an extremely dangerous doctrine. Supposedly to “protect” the Islamist “rebels”—HRC’s allies in a broader war--in Benghazi, the R2P intervention destroyed Sirte, provided cover for a genocide of Libya’s Black population, killed thousands of civilians, and left Libya in a shambles from which it has yet to recover. In other words...chaos.
So much for HRC touting her much-vaunted “Arab Spring.”
All of this to implement a foreign policy that assumes a global police force should intervene based upon solid, unbiased evidence. Johnstone argues, in contrast, that Gaddafi’s opponents manufactured the evidence for the so-called “humanitarian emergency” that the mainstream media broadcast globally.
Sound familiar? Remember President G.W. Bush’s intervention in Iraq? HRC’s intervention was manufactured whole cloth from false propaganda that ignored conflicting sources, according to Johnstone.
More damning, the implications of HRC’s R2P policy are precisely those kind of global failures that Democrats typically impute to Republican neocons: R2P exists for the United States to exterminate what its leaders consider “rogue” regimes. Meaning: Either comply with U.S. policy or you’re toast and what will be left behind is chaos.
In the concluding chapter, “The War Party,” Johnstone writes that “[t]he rise of Hillary Clinton should make clear the total failure of clinging to the Democratic Party as the ‘lesser evil’.”
Indeed. When it comes to U.S. foreign policy, as bad as The Donald may appear to liberals and conservatives alike, could it possibly be true that HRC along with husband as well as the Democratic Party are unredeemable, controlled as they are by corporate money and married to the mammon flowing into their coffers at the Clinton Foundation from military-industrial complex and foreign nations aligned with R2P? Johnstone’s argument and evidence leaves the reader wondering whether The Donald might very well be the lesser of two evils.
In the end, Johnstone asserts that R2P—and HRC’s appeal to the electorate that her gender aligns HRC with its needs—offers no real promise to improve the plight of the poor, the working class, or those foreign leaders and nations that are demonized by a U.S. foreign policy that’s constructed upon R2P.
Might R2P end with HRC winning a Nobel Peace Prize? The likely answer is “No.” According to Johnstone, the result of R2P will be more global chaos from the Queen of Chaos.
All of this...and more..from a disillusioned, liberal journalist. When they’re honest, they’re well worth reading.
Let the discussion begin…
To purchase Diana Johnstone's book, click on the following link:
As with most foodie things that are “trending,” The Motley Monk knew nothing about one recent foodie trend, “cloud bread,” advertised as a grain-free, low-carb alternative to bread. Its hashtag #cloudbread generates 2k+ images on Instagram. And, even though it’s early in the year, the folks over at Pinterest have ranked cloud bread among 2016’s top-10 trends.
Cloud bread is confected with eggs, softened cream cheese, and cream of tartar with a dab of honey to sweeten the mixture. When baked, cloud bread has a crispy texture but, stored overnight in a plastic container, becomes soft and chewy cloud.
As with most trends, consumers had better be careful because cloud bread isn’t all is baked up to be.
A little research indicated that even though it’s a healthy idea to cut the carbs associated with regular bread, consuming cloud bread doesn’t offer a healthy alternative to whole grain bread.
But, why? Consider these facts:
The Motley Monk’s assessment? Rice Krispy Treats have more health benefits and are advertised for what they are: A snack not a main course. Snack food doesn’t constitute a healthy diet...hopefully, a momentary detour from the pathway to good health.
Let the discussion begin...
More suitable for a "Final 'Goodbye'"?
With 73% of all Americans holding the opinion that Congress should not increase federal spending, it’s no wonder Congress continuously fails the popularity poll.
Even those who are supposedly “budget hawks”—the Republican majority in both houses of Congress since 2013—have consistently proposed increases to federal spending. How much? In 2014, $966B and in 2016, $1.07T. That’s $104B in increases in just 4 years that Republicans—in the person of the then-House Budget Committee Chair and now-Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI)—have proposed.
In marked contrast, 57% of all Americans believe that Speaker Ryan is a fiscal conservative, apparently believing the propaganda. Let’s not forget that Ryan and the Republicans said they would not continue increasing the federal spending.
Sure, the Republicans can make many arguments about why they’re not to blame. But the facts make one thing clear: What Ryan and his fellow Republicans believe to constitute fiscal discipline is not the kind that 73% of all Americans want.
Examining these facts, Tommy Binion opines in the Daily Signal that “the House Republicans have lost the forest for the trees.” He notes:
Frustrated by Democrats and intimidated by a complicit media, the Republican leadership is looking for a way out of the conflict that invariably comes when one tries to exert fiscal discipline. Each budgeting document is seen as an exit ramp away from a public squabble with the Democrats rather than a path forward to responsible budgeting.
The Republicans’ so-called “fiscal discipline” is more like “feed the pig” of the federal trough.
Over the past few months, Speaker Ryan has said that he and his fellow Congressional Republicans will communicate to the nation a “vision” of a federal budget this election cycle. He promises it will be responsible, compassionate, and prudent in its priorities and spending.
Unfortunately, Ryan’s track record offers a different vision, one of caving in to the Democrats in terms of priorities and spending.
What evidence indicates that Ryan should be believed this time around?
Let the discussion begin…
To read Tommy Binion’s article, click on the following link:
Remember when Obamacare became the law of the land in 2010? One item included in the law was an "Independent Payment Advisory Board" (IPAB)--better known as the "Nation's Death Panel"--that scared the bejeezus out of healthcare providers and their patients.
While President Obama said in 2009 that IPAB would make decisions about "blue" and "red" pills, the truth is that IPAB would start cutting Medicare payments to healthcare providers beginning in 2015, based upon a target rate of Medicare spending per capita.
The economics of those cuts, important as they are, aren't the reason for this post. No, what's really important is the question that's not being asked, namely, "Why hasn't President Obama nominated any IPAB members?"
Over at the National Center for Policy Analysis, John Graham offers a scenario. Basically, there was no upside:
Problem solved...'kick the can down the street."
NOT! One of the provisions of Obamacare is that if IPAB is not appointed, then its regulatory powers become the purvey of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Worse yet, Congress has little power to reverse those regulatory decisions...after all, Congress delegated those powers by law.
Graham calls IPAB a "sleeping dragon" and warns Congress to kill this sleeping dragon before it wakes up. However, Graham may be talking to the wind.
With the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress--largely due to their promises to "repeal" and "replace" Obamacare--there's absolutely zero evidence that they have any interest in doing so.
"Hope and change"...NOT.
Let the discussion begin...
To read John Graham's post, click on the following link:
Apparently not...as B.J. Novak demonstrates:
Meanwhile: The intergenerational theft continues: