It now seems that some Republicans don't even believe in the concept of insurance, whereby resources are pooled and risk is spread among a large group of people who all pay into a pot that helps out those who get sick, or whose house burns down, etc.
As an example, one Republican member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seemed incredulous that the cost of prenatal care for pregnant women was included in the premiums that men pay for health insurance.
Aside from the fact that pregnancies do not occur without at least some participation by men, there is the basic concept of insurance, Jonathan Cohn and Jeffrey Young, writing in the Huffington Post, characterize it as: "the idea that people will pay into the system when they are not using it, so it's there for them when they are." We all pay for some services that we don't use. Women's premiums help cover the cost of prostate cancer treatment, for example. We all share in paying for someone else's cancer treatment, while hoping we never get cancer ourselves.
Compare another type of insurance: homeowners fire insurance. Most people's houses never catch on fire. But you want to have the insurance (and your mortgage contract requires it) so that you're covered for this huge expense if it ever does happen. If you were to self-insure for house fires, you'd need to permanently set aside hundreds of thousands of dollars you may never need, just so you can replace your house if it ever does burn down. Only the very wealthy can afford to do that. For everybody else, we have insurance.
It's called cooperation. It's not socialism, as some extreme right-wingers want to call it. There's also the argument that we all benefit from living in a society that takes care of its most needy and most disadvantaged. I would not want to live where that was not a shared value. [See Joe Kennedy III's eloquent statement on this in yesterday's ShrinkRap.]
In trying to sell his health care replacement plan, Speaker Paul Ryan used inflammatory rhetoric that emphasized the point of view of those who oppose "entitlements" and the whole concept of social contract. As reported by Cohn and Young, Ryan said: "The whole idea of Obamacare is that . . . the people who are healthy pay for the people who are sick. It's not working. And that's why it's in a death spiral."
That is such a distortion. First, what he derides as the "whole idea" is actually the concept of insurance -- spreading the risk. Second, Obamacare is not in a "death spiral." There are two main reasons premiums have gone up: (1) health care costs have risen, but less rapidly than they did before Obamacare; and (2) Republicans have created such a sense of uncertainty in what is going to happen that insurance companies are hedging their bets, in some instances pulling out of markets, and in others raising their rates exorbitantly.
Ryan is equally dishonest in what he promises from his plan, explaining how it would stop skyrocketing premiums and collapsing markets, so Americans can "enjoy universal access" to health care. How do you square "15 million will lose their Medicaid health care" with "universal access to health care." Make Ryan explain that.
The answer of course is that the most efficient and the least costly method of providing health care insurance for all people is the government-run, single payer, universal health care. We are the only developed nation that does not have some version of this. And most of them work pretty well. But it is anathema to Republicans, who have made "socialized medicine" a term of horrified opposition for decades. It is also fought strenuously by the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.
As Cohn and Young conclude: "The ultimate goal for Ryan and his GOP allies isn't to guarantee health care and financial protection from medical bills. It's to minimize taxes, especially taxes on the rich, and to let the free market operate with as few regulations as possible. That's a perfectly defensible choice for extreme conservatives . . . But it reflects a very particular set of priorities and values -- and perhaps not one a majority of American share."
I wish this could be just an abstract debate about the role of government, but it's being fought out over real people's actual lives. With Republicans in power, we seem headed back to a Golden Age for the wealthy, a disappearing middle class, and a growing lower class who barely make it. The wealthy are increasingly enclaved into gated communities, protected from contact with the masses and their diseases and their sniveling brats. Push them away, let them suffer . . . and die. Under Ryan's plan, the government won't care either.
Ralph
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Listen carefully to Paul Ryan about health care bill. Beneath that squeeky clean, good guy image is the soul of Ayn Rand.
Sometimes it's important to listen carefully and literally to what people say to hear the underlying message that sneaks in between the lines. A clip of Paul Ryan trying to sell the American Health Care Act to his Republican colleagues has been played repeatedly on TV. Here it is:
"This is the closest we will ever get to repealing and replacing Obamacare."
He doesn't say "this is how we will do it." He says it's the closest we'll ever get. At first, I read that to mean he doesn't expect that it will pass. Then after hearing more from Paul Ryan in an interview -- hearing his excitement about the historic moment this would be if it does pass -- here is what I think:
Ryan is saying that this is huge and will be historic if we can pass it. But, if we let this moment pass and don't, we'll never get the chance to pass it. Because if people really understand what we're doing, they'll never stand for it.
And that was borne out last night, when Rep. Joe Kennedy III was on Chris Hayes MSNBC show. Kennedy is on one of the committees that had to sign off on this bill. They stayed in session for 37 hours -- throughout the night, doing the process that's called "marking up" the bill. Kennedy finally did understand what it does, but it took his aggressive questioning of the lawyer representing Ryan to the committee.
First, listen to Ryan in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. He seemed jubilant at what they are about to do, saying that: "We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars a year. . . . This is so much bigger, by orders of magnitude, than [the 1993] welfare reform." He sees it as "a historic opportunity to reduce the welfare rolls. . . . Welfare reform is a $16 billion program. . . [but] this will be trillions in the end. Let me just describe what this does for conservatives. . . . This is why I am so excited about it and why I think people need to see the forest for the trees. We are de-federalizing an entire entitlement, block-granting it back to the states, and capping its growth rate. That's never been done before."
Ryan was asked if he was concerned about the predictions that it will knock 15 million people off Medicaid [and therefore off their health care]. Here's Ryan's response: "You're never going to win a coverage beauty contest when it's free market versus government mandates. . . .Our goal is not to show a pretty piece of paper that says we're mandating great things for Americans."
In fairness to Ryan, he went on to state what their goals are: to shift to free market health care, to give people more choices, first about whether to buy insurance, and second a market that will offer more choices -- plus small government, reduce regulations, and lower taxes.
What's not answered is: what if the market doesn't offer affordable choices for millions of people? What about them? Does government have any obligation to help them? Apparently not, in the Ryan view. For him, it's about his conservative ideology, not about what people need. Which is why, in my headline, I mentioned the "soul of Ayn Rand," who was the proponent of a hard-nosed, free market materialism.
Let me state this more starkly. Ryan avoids even addressing the human aspect of this -- the real humans who will suffer and, some, who will die. He's saying, well, the free market can never match a government mandate -- if what you're measuring is how many people get health care. But what we really care about is cutting government programs and letting the free market operate, even if it can't cover as many people.
Chris Hayes then turned to Joe Kennedy, who was in his studio, who was shaking his head, as if in disbelief, who said: "That's not who we are as a nation. It's not what health care is about. Health care at its most basic is about taking care of those among us in their time of need. That's what health care is. That's what health care does.
"And why so many of us are so upset is we've got what is essentially a massive tax cut to the wealthy on the backs of hard-working families that are living paycheck to paycheck, and costing 15 million people their health care. And all in the service of health care reform. It's outrageous. It's not who we are as a country."
In discussion Chris and Joe clarified that this will represent a huge cut in Medicare over time. It will phase in gradually so that it won't be so obvious at first -- and won't be fully phased in until after the 2020 election. But it will be the people who need it most and can't afford it who are going to "take it on the nose so the wealthy can have their tax cut."
Kennedy further said that it was very apparent to him, during those 30 plus hours in the committee, that most of his Republican colleagues didn't really understand what this does, even though they voted for it. That is, it passes off a tax cut as health care reform, and it takes away needed benefits from those who can least afford them to give the tax cut to those who least need them.
Now I'm even more outraged than I was before I heard what it was like for Joe Kennedy, being there in the middle of this debacle. Paul Ryan doesn't seem to give a thought to what effect it's going to have on those who lose their Medicaid. He's excited at the prospect of being the one who does something historic. He's assuaged his conscience by turning the money into bloc grants to the states. So now it's not his problem. Let the states handle it. He's got the tax cut he promised his wealthy donors.
This is not an abstract argument about theory of government, although that is at the base of this. This is about life and death for millions of people.
Ralph
"This is the closest we will ever get to repealing and replacing Obamacare."
He doesn't say "this is how we will do it." He says it's the closest we'll ever get. At first, I read that to mean he doesn't expect that it will pass. Then after hearing more from Paul Ryan in an interview -- hearing his excitement about the historic moment this would be if it does pass -- here is what I think:
Ryan is saying that this is huge and will be historic if we can pass it. But, if we let this moment pass and don't, we'll never get the chance to pass it. Because if people really understand what we're doing, they'll never stand for it.
And that was borne out last night, when Rep. Joe Kennedy III was on Chris Hayes MSNBC show. Kennedy is on one of the committees that had to sign off on this bill. They stayed in session for 37 hours -- throughout the night, doing the process that's called "marking up" the bill. Kennedy finally did understand what it does, but it took his aggressive questioning of the lawyer representing Ryan to the committee.
First, listen to Ryan in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. He seemed jubilant at what they are about to do, saying that: "We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars a year. . . . This is so much bigger, by orders of magnitude, than [the 1993] welfare reform." He sees it as "a historic opportunity to reduce the welfare rolls. . . . Welfare reform is a $16 billion program. . . [but] this will be trillions in the end. Let me just describe what this does for conservatives. . . . This is why I am so excited about it and why I think people need to see the forest for the trees. We are de-federalizing an entire entitlement, block-granting it back to the states, and capping its growth rate. That's never been done before."
Ryan was asked if he was concerned about the predictions that it will knock 15 million people off Medicaid [and therefore off their health care]. Here's Ryan's response: "You're never going to win a coverage beauty contest when it's free market versus government mandates. . . .Our goal is not to show a pretty piece of paper that says we're mandating great things for Americans."
In fairness to Ryan, he went on to state what their goals are: to shift to free market health care, to give people more choices, first about whether to buy insurance, and second a market that will offer more choices -- plus small government, reduce regulations, and lower taxes.
What's not answered is: what if the market doesn't offer affordable choices for millions of people? What about them? Does government have any obligation to help them? Apparently not, in the Ryan view. For him, it's about his conservative ideology, not about what people need. Which is why, in my headline, I mentioned the "soul of Ayn Rand," who was the proponent of a hard-nosed, free market materialism.
Let me state this more starkly. Ryan avoids even addressing the human aspect of this -- the real humans who will suffer and, some, who will die. He's saying, well, the free market can never match a government mandate -- if what you're measuring is how many people get health care. But what we really care about is cutting government programs and letting the free market operate, even if it can't cover as many people.
Chris Hayes then turned to Joe Kennedy, who was in his studio, who was shaking his head, as if in disbelief, who said: "That's not who we are as a nation. It's not what health care is about. Health care at its most basic is about taking care of those among us in their time of need. That's what health care is. That's what health care does.
"And why so many of us are so upset is we've got what is essentially a massive tax cut to the wealthy on the backs of hard-working families that are living paycheck to paycheck, and costing 15 million people their health care. And all in the service of health care reform. It's outrageous. It's not who we are as a country."
In discussion Chris and Joe clarified that this will represent a huge cut in Medicare over time. It will phase in gradually so that it won't be so obvious at first -- and won't be fully phased in until after the 2020 election. But it will be the people who need it most and can't afford it who are going to "take it on the nose so the wealthy can have their tax cut."
Kennedy further said that it was very apparent to him, during those 30 plus hours in the committee, that most of his Republican colleagues didn't really understand what this does, even though they voted for it. That is, it passes off a tax cut as health care reform, and it takes away needed benefits from those who can least afford them to give the tax cut to those who least need them.
Now I'm even more outraged than I was before I heard what it was like for Joe Kennedy, being there in the middle of this debacle. Paul Ryan doesn't seem to give a thought to what effect it's going to have on those who lose their Medicaid. He's excited at the prospect of being the one who does something historic. He's assuaged his conscience by turning the money into bloc grants to the states. So now it's not his problem. Let the states handle it. He's got the tax cut he promised his wealthy donors.
This is not an abstract argument about theory of government, although that is at the base of this. This is about life and death for millions of people.
Ralph
Friday, March 10, 2017
Trump threatens to kill people's health care; then says something completely different.
Jim Acosta, senior White House correspondent for CNN, sent out this:
"Trump told Tea Party groups at WH if GOP health care plan dies, he will let Obamacare fail and let Dems take the blame, I'm told."
Pause a moment to take in what that means. We have a president who would be vindictive enough, if his plan fails, to kill the other plan -- resulting in the deaths of thousands of people -- out of malice and spite in retribution for his losing.
Believable? Yes.
On the other hand, a few hours after that notice was published, this came on in a big HuffPost story. It seems that the Freedom Caucus (the Tea Party members in Congress) are unhappy with the bill presented by Paul Ryan, who refused to consider some changes they wanted. So two Freedom Caucus members met directly with President Trump and worked with his budget staff several hours yesterday afternoon, drawing up amendments to the bill. Their chief goal, agreed to by Trump, is to keep premiums from going up.
So . . . . who knows where it will stand by the time you're reading this on Friday. And what position will the president take when the CBO comes out with its analysis that 15 million people will lose their insurance under the Republican plan? One hint is that Sean Spicer has already begun the campaign to discredit the CBO.
"Trump told Tea Party groups at WH if GOP health care plan dies, he will let Obamacare fail and let Dems take the blame, I'm told."
Pause a moment to take in what that means. We have a president who would be vindictive enough, if his plan fails, to kill the other plan -- resulting in the deaths of thousands of people -- out of malice and spite in retribution for his losing.
Believable? Yes.
On the other hand, a few hours after that notice was published, this came on in a big HuffPost story. It seems that the Freedom Caucus (the Tea Party members in Congress) are unhappy with the bill presented by Paul Ryan, who refused to consider some changes they wanted. So two Freedom Caucus members met directly with President Trump and worked with his budget staff several hours yesterday afternoon, drawing up amendments to the bill. Their chief goal, agreed to by Trump, is to keep premiums from going up.
So . . . . who knows where it will stand by the time you're reading this on Friday. And what position will the president take when the CBO comes out with its analysis that 15 million people will lose their insurance under the Republican plan? One hint is that Sean Spicer has already begun the campaign to discredit the CBO.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
It just gets worse for Trump and the Republicans
1. The American Health Care Act (AHCA) rolled out by Republicans this week has run into a buzzsaw of opposition -- from Republicans in Congress. Democrats were already opposed, sight unseen. On top of that, the AARP, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, as well as numerous patient advocacy and health industry groups are rejecting it. I haven't heard anyone, except GOP leaders and committee members who put this together, who speak favorably about it. And we haven't even had an analysis yet by the Congressional Budget Office to show how many will lose coverage and how much it will cost. It is a disaster, as predicted.
2. The International Women's Day was yesterday, and President Trump chose to send out a message about it on twitter, instead of the usual dignified presidential proclamation. Here's what he sent:
"I have tremendous respect for women and the many roles they serve that are vital to the fabric of our society and our economy. On International Women's Day, join me in honoring the critical role of women here in America and around the world."
Nothing wrong with that, except that . . . well, he's Donald Trump, with all of his misogynistic baggage. So he got hundreds of angry responses, with references to his many failures to actually show respect for women. They ranged from his anti-abortion executive order and defunding Planned Parenthood, to his "grab 'em by the p---y" comment, to the mostly male makeup of his cabinet, to the threat to separate mothers and children in the immigration crackdown, to the fact that he began this presidential statement on this day honoring women with "I," as in "I have tremendous . . . ."
3. The new Muslim Travel Ban issued as a new executive order this week is responsive to most of the issues that were criticized by the court in the first ban, according to Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson who won the case. However, other opponents to the ban think there is still a court case against the new ban, now based on the evidence suggesting it is really a Muslim ban in disguise. They can base their argument on (1) statements by Trump and Guiliani about intent to impose a Muslim ban and (2) the lack of evidence that there is any need for the ban from these specific countries, which are alike only in that they have Muslim-majority populations. The state of Hawaii has already filed a court challenge, claiming that it is unconstitutional on those grounds.
The argument about a lack of need for the ban is especially stark since those draft reports from Homeland Security analysts got leaked, showing that young men living in the US who commit terrorist acts become radicalized after they have been living here for several years. They do not come in as radicals, so the ban would not have any basis for denying them. The solution to that problem is not a ban, but community approach to working with young immigrant men so that they do not turn to radical recruiters for a meaningful life. It's their experience living as immigrants in the U.S. that is the problem to be addressed. All the anti-Muslim talk and things like the ban will only make that worse. [I'll expand on this in a later post.]
4. The Trump-Russia connection continues to evolve, with new leaks dribbling out. The New Yorker article, featured by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, explores Trump's business dealings with oligarchs in Azerbaijan, some of whom are connected to bribery, corruption, and money laundering. It is against the law for American investors to have business dealings with foreign businesses that engage in such practices. One such American is currently serving time in federal prison for not much more than is alleged that Trump and his company have done.
5. AG Jeff Sessions is still in hot water (1) with the Judiciary Committee because his "clartification" letter to explain why he didn't mention his two meetings with the Russian ambassador was unsatisfactory; and (2) with Trump, who didn't want him to recuse himself from overseeing any Justice Department investigation of Russia, wiretapping, meetings with the Trump team, etc. There's just too much smoke not to have a fire underneath -- too many Trump team people (at least 8) who have met with Russians, along with Trump's own, singularly positive attitude toward Putin/Russia -- moreso than with even our close allies. He's insulted or fought with everyone but Putin.
6. In England, there is an online betting site that is giving 2 to 1 odds that Trump will not last out the year as president. The article didn't say, but I wonder if they're also taking bets on whether Melania will ever move to the White House. She's made a few appearances for social occasions, but there seems to be nothing there between her and her husband. And reports are that she's not taken any steps to set up a First Lady office, which is customary and usually includes a whole staff of aides, planners, etc.
That's enough for now of White House woes. It's only Wednesday.
Ralph
2. The International Women's Day was yesterday, and President Trump chose to send out a message about it on twitter, instead of the usual dignified presidential proclamation. Here's what he sent:
"I have tremendous respect for women and the many roles they serve that are vital to the fabric of our society and our economy. On International Women's Day, join me in honoring the critical role of women here in America and around the world."
Nothing wrong with that, except that . . . well, he's Donald Trump, with all of his misogynistic baggage. So he got hundreds of angry responses, with references to his many failures to actually show respect for women. They ranged from his anti-abortion executive order and defunding Planned Parenthood, to his "grab 'em by the p---y" comment, to the mostly male makeup of his cabinet, to the threat to separate mothers and children in the immigration crackdown, to the fact that he began this presidential statement on this day honoring women with "I," as in "I have tremendous . . . ."
3. The new Muslim Travel Ban issued as a new executive order this week is responsive to most of the issues that were criticized by the court in the first ban, according to Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson who won the case. However, other opponents to the ban think there is still a court case against the new ban, now based on the evidence suggesting it is really a Muslim ban in disguise. They can base their argument on (1) statements by Trump and Guiliani about intent to impose a Muslim ban and (2) the lack of evidence that there is any need for the ban from these specific countries, which are alike only in that they have Muslim-majority populations. The state of Hawaii has already filed a court challenge, claiming that it is unconstitutional on those grounds.
The argument about a lack of need for the ban is especially stark since those draft reports from Homeland Security analysts got leaked, showing that young men living in the US who commit terrorist acts become radicalized after they have been living here for several years. They do not come in as radicals, so the ban would not have any basis for denying them. The solution to that problem is not a ban, but community approach to working with young immigrant men so that they do not turn to radical recruiters for a meaningful life. It's their experience living as immigrants in the U.S. that is the problem to be addressed. All the anti-Muslim talk and things like the ban will only make that worse. [I'll expand on this in a later post.]
4. The Trump-Russia connection continues to evolve, with new leaks dribbling out. The New Yorker article, featured by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, explores Trump's business dealings with oligarchs in Azerbaijan, some of whom are connected to bribery, corruption, and money laundering. It is against the law for American investors to have business dealings with foreign businesses that engage in such practices. One such American is currently serving time in federal prison for not much more than is alleged that Trump and his company have done.
5. AG Jeff Sessions is still in hot water (1) with the Judiciary Committee because his "clartification" letter to explain why he didn't mention his two meetings with the Russian ambassador was unsatisfactory; and (2) with Trump, who didn't want him to recuse himself from overseeing any Justice Department investigation of Russia, wiretapping, meetings with the Trump team, etc. There's just too much smoke not to have a fire underneath -- too many Trump team people (at least 8) who have met with Russians, along with Trump's own, singularly positive attitude toward Putin/Russia -- moreso than with even our close allies. He's insulted or fought with everyone but Putin.
6. In England, there is an online betting site that is giving 2 to 1 odds that Trump will not last out the year as president. The article didn't say, but I wonder if they're also taking bets on whether Melania will ever move to the White House. She's made a few appearances for social occasions, but there seems to be nothing there between her and her husband. And reports are that she's not taken any steps to set up a First Lady office, which is customary and usually includes a whole staff of aides, planners, etc.
That's enough for now of White House woes. It's only Wednesday.
Ralph
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Republicans can't decide what to call their health plan. It doesn't matter; it will never become law.
The Republican's long-anticipated "replacement" for Obamacare has finally been released; and, frankly, they needn't have bothered. It will never become law.
There are various Republican factions who hate it, for different reasons. No one praises it or even sorta, maybe likes it a little bit.
It does keep the pre-existing conditions rule, and it lets kids stay on their parents' plan until 26. On the other hand, it ends subsidies in favor of tax credits. That's not gonna work.
It includes billions in tax cuts for the wealthy, partly offset by increasing premiums for those 50 and over. It gives a tip of the hat to ending Medicaid expansion, but it's not clear exactly how bad that is.
Here's the biggest reason it will never pass: the Congressional Budget Office has not yet analyzed the plan to estimate (1) how many people will lose coverage (a lot) and (2) how much it will cost.
Those are the most critical issues, and everything suggests that each will be enough to make the bill untenable -- and both together will make it political suicide.
That's what I think.
Ralph
HUD Sec. Ben Carson says slaves were immigrants
In his debut address to employees of HUD, which he now heads, Ben Carson spoke about the "can-do" spirit of the immigrants that built American society. He spoke about the value system of the immigrants who helped build our nation. Then he said that value system was also exemplified by "other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder, for less."
What Carson was trying to portray was that even slaves had a "can-do" attitude to overcome hardships and realize their dreams. Yes, this African-American famed neurosurgeon, inspirational lecturer and author actually talked about slaves realizing their dreams here in America.
Not surprisingly, like many of Carson's sayings, it did not go over well. He has a way of taking a good idea and presenting it in a ludicrous way that distracts from the meaning he's intending.
He later tried to clarify, differentiating between "voluntary immigrants" and "involuntary immigrants." The "slave narrative and the immigrant narrative are two entirely different experiences," he declared. Well, duh. Ya think?
It's good to get that cleared up. Some Africans were kidnapped and brought involuntarily to America. Two hundred years, and multiple generations later, some of their descendants achieved great things. Is that what he meant? Not the slaves themselves, but their great-great-great-grandchildren -- like Carson, himself -- living in our time could realize their dreams.
For example, as Michelle Obama so much more elegantly put it, upon moving into the White House: Her ancestors built this house, as slaves. And now she was to preside over it as First Lady.
Carson would like us to think of this as a cheery success story -- instead of the crime against humanity that it really is. No amount of success by their descendants can, or should be allowed to, erase the shameful fact of slavery carried out by our white ancestors.
Yes, we've come a long way from slavery; but we do not yet have full equality in fact -- or even in spirit. Our last election seems to be a big step backward in achieving that goal.
Ralph
What Carson was trying to portray was that even slaves had a "can-do" attitude to overcome hardships and realize their dreams. Yes, this African-American famed neurosurgeon, inspirational lecturer and author actually talked about slaves realizing their dreams here in America.
Not surprisingly, like many of Carson's sayings, it did not go over well. He has a way of taking a good idea and presenting it in a ludicrous way that distracts from the meaning he's intending.
He later tried to clarify, differentiating between "voluntary immigrants" and "involuntary immigrants." The "slave narrative and the immigrant narrative are two entirely different experiences," he declared. Well, duh. Ya think?
It's good to get that cleared up. Some Africans were kidnapped and brought involuntarily to America. Two hundred years, and multiple generations later, some of their descendants achieved great things. Is that what he meant? Not the slaves themselves, but their great-great-great-grandchildren -- like Carson, himself -- living in our time could realize their dreams.
For example, as Michelle Obama so much more elegantly put it, upon moving into the White House: Her ancestors built this house, as slaves. And now she was to preside over it as First Lady.
Carson would like us to think of this as a cheery success story -- instead of the crime against humanity that it really is. No amount of success by their descendants can, or should be allowed to, erase the shameful fact of slavery carried out by our white ancestors.
Yes, we've come a long way from slavery; but we do not yet have full equality in fact -- or even in spirit. Our last election seems to be a big step backward in achieving that goal.
Ralph
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
"He has information that the rest of us don't have."
President Trump's counselor/spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway repeated the claims of a wire tap on Trump Tower, telling Fox News that Mr. Trump "has information and intelligence" to back up his claims. "He's the president of the United States. He has information and intelligence that the rest of us do not, and that's the way it should be."
Yes but, Kellyanne, if the Director of National Intelligence (Clapper) and the Director of the FBI (Comey) both say there was no wire tap, please tell us where the president gets such secret information.
Breitbart News? The Russians?
But here's another question: What is the president so afraid of having revealed? Why such a hissy fit if there's no there, there?
Ralph
Yes but, Kellyanne, if the Director of National Intelligence (Clapper) and the Director of the FBI (Comey) both say there was no wire tap, please tell us where the president gets such secret information.
Breitbart News? The Russians?
But here's another question: What is the president so afraid of having revealed? Why such a hissy fit if there's no there, there?
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
