Outlasting the daily assaults and memes

Pensive thoughts for Easter weekend from Richard Fernandez a/k/a Wretchard at PJ Media:

If a viral cocktail of political correctness, socialist dysfunction, and moral relativism is now besetting the West, then reason is as useless against it as Veritatis splendor [The Splendor of the Truth, an encyclical by Pope John Paul II expressing the Catholic Church’s role in moral teaching] was against the devil. The meme can continue to spread regardless of damage until it pulls the host down to its energy level. Is there a way out? The Roman Empire never solved the problem of how to dominate a malignant meme, but humanity found a way of outlasting it. "Western Christianity survived by clinging to places like Skellig Michael, a pinnacle of rock [seven] miles from the Irish coast, rising seven hundred feet out of the sea." The mission of the monks was to remember God -- to remember the truth -- until the mysterious workings of the system brought them forth again…

The rest of his column is here.

# # #

What The Mueller Report will NOT report

It’s scheduled for tomorrow morning. Via Hannity:

Attorney General William Barr will hold a 9:30am press conference Thursday morning regarding Robert Mueller’s final report; setting the stage for a high-stakes showdown just moments before the DOJ is poised to release the special counsel’s conclusions to Congress.

Attorney Sidney Powell has been one of the most effective and informed critics of the abuse of power at DOJ, FBI, CIA, the DNC, etc. Yesterday, she went on record predicting what will be in the Mueller Report, what will be obscured or omitted, how it will be slanted, etc. I expect that she will be 99% correct:

The Mueller Report will try very hard to shroud the real issues–which are:  WHY, WHERE, WHEN, HOW, and BY WHOM did the spying on Mr. Trump and his associates begin?  From all information available so far, per Comey’s own admissions, there was never a legal or factual basis to begin any investigation of anyone associated with Mr. Trump, and they never verified a word of the “Steele dossier.”   The evidence so far exposes a significant group in the CIA, FBI, DOJ, DOD, and State Department, who manufactured the entire counter-intelligence operation from thin air.   It’s smoke tied with baling wire. That is a bombshell from which Mr. Mueller and Mr. Weissmann must distract.

The long-awaited Report will doubtlessly contain a lot of assertions about Russian troll farms–like the unprecedented charges in the Concord indictment that came mostly from an article in a Russian magazine–combined with claims and much jibberish that it was Russians who hacked the DNC.  It will ignore all the work of relentless reporter Luke Rosiak who has fully documented the nefarious work of the Pakistani Awan brothers -– abject criminals to whom Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and at least three dozen Congressional Democrats gave the keys to the kingdom of the DNC and our national intelligence on the Hill.  It will ignore the work of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community and the Inspector General of Congress–both of whom documented exposure of our national secrets by the Awan brothers and Mrs. Clinton, respectively.  It will also ignore the irrefutable fact that if the FBI and DNC really wanted to determine who hacked the DNC, the DNC would have turned over the servers to the FBI–or the FBI would have seized them as it does when it purports to conduct a real investigation as opposed to a sham or a cover-up.

The Truth will be found in documents the Mueller Report avoids -- the documents all the real criminals created when they thought they would never be caught and they would “stop” Trump.  We must have the original documents declassified and disclosed to the public to the maximum extent possible.  This includes, for starters, the 99-page decision of the FISA court in which Chief Judge Rosemary Collyer excoriated the FBI and the NSA for their abuses of the entire surveillance system and tools.

That’s just a start. She specifies the documentation that she recommends – and hopes – will be released with minimal redactions. Read all of her pre-analysis and predictions here.

# # #

Medicare for All Means Private Insurance for None

File under: healthcare in the 2020 debates

Hunt Lawrence and Daniel J. Flynn at The Spectator have a good analysis of the "Medicare For All" proposals supported by, so far, five of the Democrats who have announced they’re running:

Democratic candidates call healthcare a right in mantra-like fashion. Gillibrand, for instance, insisted “health care must be a right, not a privilege” at the rally last week reintroducing the Medicare for All bill. But in what kind of a country do you get to exercise a right only through the government?

Imagine if in affirming a right to free speech one added the caveat that one could communicate only through government-run publications, websites, and broadcast stations. Or, if the freedom of religion found expression only through the one true church established by the state. Or, if the right to transportation meant solely a ride on a smelly, sweaty city bus.

This makes a farce of any sane understanding of rights, as does the notion of a “right” to healthcare exercised through insuring that nobody possesses the right to obtain healthcare save from the state.

This all seems the stuff of Five Year Plans and Great Leaps Forward. Yet, five major presidential candidates — Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand — serve as sponsors in the Senate of the Medicare for All bill. The proposed legislation makes it “unlawful” for “a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act” and for “an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act.”

. . .

As government’s role in healthcare expanded through such programs designed to relieve patients of financial burdens as Medicare Part D’s prescription drug subsidies and Obamacare, a funny thing happened: Prices skyrocketed. Rather than admitting that past panaceas did not do as promised, their backers insist that we do what failed only at increased levels.

. . .

Banning private insurance may prove a winning formula in a Democratic primary. But in a presidential contest, where pragmatism beats ideological purity, promising to take away the existing health insurance of most Americans seems as much a loser politically as it does as policy.

Government-run healthcare means no competition. Higher prices. Rationing. We have all seen what government-run healthcare looks like – and not just Obamacare. There’s the Veteran’s Administration hospitals (a 2017 report is here) and Indian reservations’ healthcare (a 2018 report is here). Full report at The Spectators is here.

# # #

On Tax Day: the Fair Tax option

Today was the deadline to file your income tax returns. Mr. Vodkapundit, Stephen Green, marked the occasion with his column at PJ Media, "Abolish the Income Tax, Abolish the IRS":

The Fair Tax isn't exactly a new idea, but it's one worth reminding people of every April 15.

The Fair Tax would completely eliminate payroll taxes and individual and corporate income taxes by repealing the 16th Amendment. Washington would be funded instead by a national sales tax -- partly offset by a monthly "prebate" paid to every household. As described by Americans for Fair Taxation, the prebate is "an 'advance refund' at the beginning of each month so that purchases made up to the poverty level are tax-free." You would take home 100 percent of your pay, and determine your own tax rate based on how much you spend each month.

The IRS is abolished, replaced by a tax collection mechanism every single merchant is already familiar with. Conspicuous consumption by the rich would be met with a heavy sales tax burden, but investments in jobs and growth and innovation would be tax-free.

Other benefits include zero compliance cost for individuals, no more audits, no more loopholes, and vastly reduced opportunities for official corruption and graft. Almost as good, perhaps, is that only legal U.S. residents are eligible for the prebate, but everybody, from native-born citizen to illegal alien, pays their fair share at the cash register.

Makes sense, which is why it's unlikely to happen. Full article is here.

# # #

Joe DiGenova on James Comey

image/art credit: thinkgeek.com

Joe DiGenova is one of my favorites. He is a “former U.S. Attorney, Independent Counsel, Special Counsel to the House of Representatives, and investigator for more than 40 years,” and he is my nomination for the "Must Read" for the Weekend. His article, James 'Cardinal' Comey — the man who destroyed the FBI” is posted at Fox News, and it begins:

Wyatt Earp. Elliot Ness. J. Edgar Hoover. Inspector Clouseau. James Comey. The names reflect a continuum, from greatness to farce and mediocrity.

In the annals of U.S. law enforcement, no individual has reached such depths of disgrace as James “Cardinal” Comey. The “Cardinal” was a sobriquet that FBI agents used to denigrate their leader. As Deputy Attorney General, he was called “drama queen.” Known for his pomposity and self-regard, Comey cut a swath of arrogance unmatched in the histories of either of those illustrious organizations. He was the cult of personality. He surrounded himself with sycophants, people dedicated to his promotion and their advancement. The Bureau and the public became the losers.

The Comey Memos, a 15-page suicide note, reveal a deeply tortured and troubled man. They have a hausfrau sentimentality. But they are telling nonetheless.

DiGenova’s full column is here.

# # #

Blatant: Google’s censorship

The other day, this blog linked to a report about Google’s dishonest and ham-handed censorship of Kay Cole James, Heritage Foundation President. Now there’s this by Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator:

As we now learn from the Daily Caller, The American Spectator has been blacklisted by Google. The DC’s headline, in a post by J. Arthur Bloom, is this:

Exclusive: Documents Detailing Google’s ‘News Blacklist’ Show Manual Manipulation Of Special Search Results

. . .

[American Spectator founder R. Emmett] Tyrrell drew the analogy of Communists taking over an old-fashioned pre-computer-age public library — and then methodically going through the card catalogue to remove the cards listing conservative books and authors. “Google can make all kinds of excuses,” he added, “but this is censorship, the most blatant censorship imaginable.”

Indeed it is.

. . .

(Google CEO) Sundar Pichai . . . looked a congressional committee in the eye and insisted that “we don’t manually intervene on any particular search result” — while the Daily Caller revelations revealed that “Google does manipulate its search results manually, contrary to the company’s official denials, documents obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller indicate.”

There is a name for doing that. It’s called lying to Congress. A federal crime with jail time attached.

. . .

This time around, the target is The American Spectator. This time around the iron fist belongs to Google.

The question has reached the point that conservatives need to have a serious conversation among themselves. Is it time for government regulation of these tech giants? Or is it — my preference — time for free-market competition that provides serious and successful competition to these companies?

Full report is here.

# # #

Update: Electoral College in Ohio

Good news, for now. Ohio's presidential votes will not be counted in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact but will continue to cast those votes in the Electoral College. Cleveland.com reports:

Organizers have aborted their attempt to change Ohio’s constitution to award the state’s presidential electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who wins Ohio.

J. Corey Colombo, a Columbus elections attorney working for the organizers behind the proposal, wrote a brief letter to Secretary of State Frank LaRose on Tuesday saying the group is withdrawing its petitions. The letter (click here for a PDF) did not offer an explanation, but Colombo’s law firm later issued a statement citing time constraints and the large number of signatures required to get the issue on the ballot.

Full report is here.

# # #