Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

August 18 2018


How Google Shadowbans Conservative & Pro-Trump Content

Doug Wead, Federalist
New membership on my Facebook page has stopped dead. My best YouTube videos cannot be found. All because I posted videos of myself going on Fox News.
Media Misses: Gov. Cuomo’s Un-American Comments Don’t Get Enough Attention

Media Misses: Gov. Cuomo’s Un-American Comments Don’t Get Enough Attention

We break down the top media moments this week—and plenty of misses.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo made some disturbing comments this week when he said “We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great.” But we think the mainstream media didn’t cover it soon enough. And n ewspapers across the country banded together this week to publish editorials advocating the press in response to remarks made by President Donald Trump.

There’s no fake news here. Watch the video above for this week’s media misses and be sure to leave us your feedback at MediaMisses@dailysignal.com and you could be featured in next week’s episode.

The post Media Misses: Gov. Cuomo’s Un-American Comments Don’t Get Enough Attention appeared first on The Daily Signal.


Brennan fires new shot at Trump: ‘He’s drunk on power’

Trump 'clearly is not carrying out his responsibilities with any sense of purpose and common sense'.

U.S. government seeks Facebook help to wiretap Messenger – sources

Resurrecting the issue of whether companies can be compelled to alter their products to enable surveillance.

To Survive The Midterms With Your Mental Health Intact, Turn Off The “News” & Social Media Now

Your sanity will gleefully be sacrificed in the upcoming election--if you are gullible enough to watch the "news".

Trump ‘Boom’ Sparks Record-Breaking Backlog Of Big Rigs

North American fleets ordered over 52,000 trucks alone in July, an all-time monthly record.
Omarosa Acted Dishonorably by Recording Confidential White House Conversations, but Here’s the Bigger Problem

Omarosa Acted Dishonorably by Recording Confidential White House Conversations, but Here’s the Bigger Problem

Even if you strongly oppose President Donald Trump and want to see him defeated in 2020 or impeached before then, you should hope his presidential campaign succeeds with its legal action against Omarosa Manigault Newman alleging she violated a nondisclosure agreement. And if she broke any laws, you should want her prosecuted.

Manigault Newman—a fired presidential aide and earlier a member of the Trump campaign staff—has set a dangerous precedent by her secret recording of conversations with Trump and White House and campaign aides. The New York Times reported Thursday that Manigault Newman “is believed to have as many as 200” recordings of such conversations.

If Manigault Newman suffers no penalty for making her secret recordings—and instead uses the recordings to boost sales of her virulently anti-Trump book “Unhinged,” as she is clearly doing now for maximum media exposure—future White House employees will be tempted to follow in her footsteps.

While it is common for White House staffers to write books about the president they served after he has left office, it is far less common to see books coming out while a president is still serving. Whether the disclosures and allegations in “Unhinged” violate the nondisclosure agreement Manigault Newman signed while working on the Trump campaign is a matter still to be determined.

And I know of no previous White House aides who secretly recorded conversations and then released them to the media. Further investigation is needed to determine if any of these recordings violated the law—and if they did, Manigault Newman deserves to be prosecuted.

There’s no question that Manigault Newman’s disclosures will hinder the ability of the current president, future presidents, and their aides to candidly communicate.

The issue at stake here is good governance—not politics. If Hillary Clinton had been elected president in 2016 and her aide Huma Abedin secretly recorded conversations in the White House and released them, the action would be just as objectionable as what Manigault Newman did. However, you can bet that Democrats and the media would be far angrier at someone betraying a Democratic president.

So far, Manigault Newman has released recordings of her conservations with Trump, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, presidential daughter-in-law Lara Trump, and staffers on the Trump campaign. Politico reports that “Manigault Newman has told friends and associates that she has tapes of private phone calls from first daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, according to two sources with whom she has discussed the recording.”

Manigault Newman recorded Kelly in the White House Situation Room when he fired her. Located in the White House basement, the Situation Room is run by the National Security Council. It is equipped with a secure communications system and used primarily for managing domestic and foreign crises.

Cellphones and other recording devices are not allowed in the Situation Room—a prohibition Manigault Newman ignored, by her own admission. Even if a staff member does not knowingly use a cellphone as a recording device, hostile forces can hack into the phone and turn on its microphone to transmit conversations that spies can record. This can pose a grave national security risk.

Now that White House officials know they’ve been secretly recorded, they—and staffers for future presidents—know they can be taped again, and that could have a very harmful chilling effect on their internal discussions.

Effective management of the White House—or any government office or business—requires frank discussions among all parties. Presidential advisers must feel free to share all information that can help a president assess the nature and severity of a problem, all possible options for dealing with it, and the political, social, and public relations ramifications of every possible action or nonaction.

The president, in turn, must have confidence that these candid discussions will remain confidential. This is particularly true when it comes to national security and foreign policy threats, where leaks could endanger lives or severely damage our interests abroad.

No president—Democrat or Republican—should have to worry about secret recordings being made inside the White House. How important is it to preserve the confidentiality of presidential communications? Important enough that it is enshrined in the constitutional doctrine of executive privilege.

George Washington didn’t have to worry about recording devices. But he first asserted executive privilege in 1792 when Congress demanded internal White House documents about a failed military expedition. Most recently, executive privilege was reasserted by the Obama administration to deny Congress access to Justice Department documents regarding Operation Fast and Furious, a failed investigation of illegal gun trafficking.

In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties” in U.S. v. Nixon, the seminal case on executive privilege. This was the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that President Richard Nixon had to turn over tapes he secretly recorded of his Oval Office conversation.

While that ruling went against Nixon, the high court said in its decision the importance of preserving confidentiality between the president and those he speaks with “is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision-making process.”

The Supreme Court ruling went on to say:

The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondence … is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making. A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.

Manigault Newman acted dishonorably and dishonestly in secretly recording confidential White House conversations. But the far bigger problem with this kind of behavior is that it threatens the ability of any president to get the unfiltered information and robust debate among his advisers needed to reach the best possible decisions.

This violation of protocol and betrayal of trust is on par with the leaks from White House insiders that have come to plague all modern presidents. Future presidential candidates would be well-advised to require nondisclosure agreements from the individuals who assist them as part of their transition teams and who end up working in the White House.

The perils of modern technology—such as button and pen cameras—combined with Washington’s pervasive “leak culture,” leave would-be presidents little choice. Otherwise, the odds of them getting their advisers’ “candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions” are close to nil. And it’s precisely that kind of input presidents need when making decisions about vital issues that affect the health, safety, and prosperity of our nation and the American people.

Originally published by Fox News

The post Omarosa Acted Dishonorably by Recording Confidential White House Conversations, but Here’s the Bigger Problem appeared first on The Daily Signal.


Sorry, "Medicare for All" Won't Save the Taxpayers Money

Socialists are jumping for joy due to the fact that a Mercatus Center study supposedly concluded that "Medicare for All" would save the nation $2 trillion over the span of ten years. This twist of the official report stems from Jacobin Magazine, an openly socialist publication when they claimed that Medicare for All will ultimately save money for the people. This, however, is not the case. Jacobin is vastly incorrect about what this study actually says. If anything, this study concludes that single-payer health care will cripple the US economy.

The Truth About "Medicare for All"

There is a hint of truth in Jacobin’s claim: Medicare for All would cut $2.054 trillion in administrative expenses and drug costs. In exchange for this $2.054 trillion dollar cut in costs over ten years, however, the United States would see a significant increase in the cost of health care, costing taxpayers $32.6 trillion over the span of ten years.

These “savings,” however, do not account for the nationalization of industry. While it is estimated that the US spent $3.3 trillion on health care last year (with $1 trillion coming from the federal government), it is important to realize that most of this spending comes from the private sector. If the US adopts Medicare for All, the federal government would assume the burden of all health expenses in the US. With this in mind, the government would entirely nationalize the market for health insurance. The people aren’t actually saving money. Rather, they are being forced to fund a government monopoly on healthcare. As this article will point out, the socialization of health care will inevitably lead to even higher costs than we could ever predict. In addition to the increase in costs due to monopolization, quality of care will severely decline. This system will lead to fewer people being treated, and those being treated will be left with subpar quality health care.

Take the current health care system where the government provides healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid; the US spent $980 billion per year in 2015 . Assuming the health care system remains the same as it is today, the US federal government would spend $10-15 trillion in ten years. In other words, Medicare for All adds at least $17 trillion dollars to the expenses to American taxpayers. The costs, however, is far from being the worst symptom of the disease that is Medicare for All.

"Medicare for All Will" Bolster an Inefficient Government.

The Medicare for All Plan Bernie Sanders introduced is ambitious in its effort to grow the size of the federal government. Not only is doubling all federal taxes insufficient in paying for the cost of this program – “Doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan” (Mercatus 2) – it would nationalize more than one-sixth of the United States economy. The proposal that Senator Sanders has introduced is nothing short of the federal government seizing the entire healthcare industry in the United States. When the government controls healthcare, it claims the power to decide who lives and who dies.

If the US provides a single payer system, it will have to cut costs in some way. One of the ways the United Kingdom has done so allows the NHS to deny treatment to those who smoke or are obese. When the government holds a monopoly on health care, people have no other options when the government refuses to treat them. In the market, however, other options exist. Single Payer Healthcare revokes the freedom to choose.

The issue of people going untreated is a natural consequence to socialized healthcare. As Ludwig von Mises points out in “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” governments cannot determine the value of social resources. In other words, socialism lacks a price system, making it impossible for there to be a profit-loss mechanism. Such a problem leads to misallocation, and ultimately chaos.

The reason why people cannot afford healthcare in the status quo is almost entirely the fault of the illogical and immoral government prohibitions and regulations on health care. This gives a special few in the industry a leg up. This crowds competitors out of the market, making it much more difficult to access healthcare. If the nearly $1 trillion the US federal government funnels into health care every year is the cause of the current system’s problems, throwing more money at the system will not make things any better. If anything, it will make it worse.

Medicare for All Will Reduce the Quality of Healthcare

Medicare for All will also lead to a decrease in the quality of healthcare. The study that the Left is claiming to praise single payer actually makes it clear that by 2019, hospitals will lose money. As the study says:

“Furthermore, it is not precisely predictable how hospitals, physicians, and other healthcare providers would respond to a dramatic reduction in their reimbursements under M4A, well below their costs of care for all categories of patients combined. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary has projected that even upholding current-law reimbursement rates for treating Medicare beneficiaries alone would cause nearly half of all hospitals to have negative total facility margins by 2040. The same study found that by 2019, over 80 percent of hospitals will lose money treating Medicare patients—a situation M4A would extend, to a first approximation, to all US patients. Perhaps some facilities and physicians would be able to generate heretofore unachieved cost savings that would enable their continued functioning without significant disruptions. However, at least some undoubtedly would not, thereby reducing the supply of healthcare services at the same time M4A sharply increases healthcare demand. It is impossible to say precisely how much the confluence of these factors would reduce individuals’ timely access to health care services, but some such access problems almost certainly must arise.”

Medicare Payment Rates are currently lower than market rates, and Sanders’s Medicare for All plan lowers the current payment rate for hospitals and other medical facilities.

Doing this would drastically restructure the incentive structures under which hospitals operate, leading to a decline in the quantity and quality of healthcare in America. Mercatus concluded that it is unknown exactly how much worse healthcare would get under Medicare for All, but that it certainly would get worse. Like all price ceilings , however, reducing the payment below the market rate would lead to shortages in health care as more people seek a product that fewer producers are willing to purchase.

What Is the Prescription to the Healthcare Crisis?

Now that it is clear that Jacobin’s conclusions about the findings of Mercatus were false, it is important to see what an actual cure for the healthcare crisis may look like. Instead of Medicare for All, we should cut more than just administrative costs. In other words, the federal government should deregulate and privatize the healthcare industry. With a plan like this, one not only saves $2 trillion in tax dollars, but also the remaining $980 billion per year in government healthcare. In other words, the should embrace capitalism in the healthcare industry.

Four Steps to Healthcare Freedom

In “ A Four-Step Healthcare Solution,” Hans-Hermann Hoppe outlines a proposal of how to privatize healthcare in the United States. His steps would save the US far more than just $2 trillion dollars in administrative costs over the span of ten years.

  1. “Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health-care personnel.” Doing so would immediately make it cheaper to become a worker in the healthcare industry. With more production comes more competition. This would lead to a drop in the overall price of healthcare. The market tends to lower prices through competition, not increase prices through monopolization. That is what the government does by regulating and nationalizing industry.
  2. “Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices.” This would, of course, lead to the abolition of the FDA. FDA approval is a long and expensive process that is frequently unreliable .
  3. “Deregulate the health-insurance industry.” This is perhaps the largest problem in the States. When politicians discuss healthcare, they are attempting to find more ways the government can get involved with insurance. One of the biggest problems involves government non-discrimination policies that make it a crime to exclude potential customers. Insurance is ultimately gambling. If an insurance company can’t refuse to cover those at a greater risk, then costs will naturally increase for everyone.
  4. “Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy.” Subsidies encourage the behavior it is subsidizing. If the US eliminates subsidies to the ill, then the need for healthcare will soon diminish as people will be more risk-averse.

Government is not the solution to healthcare. It is the problem. Medicare for All will only increase the size of government, make inefficiency inevitable, and ruin what little quality and innovation remain within American healthcare. Jacobin is wrong; Medicare for All, or more government in general, is not the solution to the current mess. Rather, privatizing the healthcare industry will not only expand human liberty. It will also make health care better and more affordable.

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!