American Elephants

The First Year of the Battle by The Elephant's Child

Much is being made of the fact this is the one year anniversary of Donald Trump’s election to the presidency of the United States. And a very strange year it has been.

At the website American Greatness (recommended) Scott Gerber, a law professor at Ohio Northern University, has reviewed the past year. The liberal media began calling for the undermining of Trump’s presidency from almost the moment he was elected. President Trump frequently refers to the daily barrage of attacks as a “witch hunt”— and it has been. I knew it was bad, but Dr. Gerber puts it all together into a fascinating but damning essay. Do read the whole thing.

The liberal media began calling for the undermining of Trump’s presidency from almost the moment he was elected. For example, on November 17, 2016, Paul Waldman opined in the Washington Post that President-elect Trump “shouldn’t ever be treated like an ordinary president with whom Democrats just have some substantive disagreements,” while Dahlia Lithwick and David S. Cohen insisted in the New York Times on December 14, “As Monday’s Electoral College vote approaches, Democrats should be fighting tooth and nail.”

With respect to the Electoral College itself, Theodore G. Venetoulis proclaimed in the Baltimore Sun that it was “the electors’ duty” to reject Trump and let the U.S. House of Representatives pick the president.

For the Left, their entire reason for existence is being in control. From being in charge, all blessings flow:  big donations, graft, obsequious attendants, attention of the media, fame, fortune, publisher’s willing to publish, television appearances, large gifts, big salaries, recognition, even the possibility of making the history books, wealth and position. And the reason for all those ‘blessings’ is their stated desire to make everybody more equal.  And thus you are supposed to believe their cries to soak the rich, and succor the poor in making the bounty of America more available to all. Uh huh.

The Left has always treated Republican presidents badly. Eisenhower, in spite of winning a rather large war in Europe, was supposed to be not very bright man from Kansas who was more interested in golf than world events. And everyone knows about Nixon.  Ronald Reagan was a minor movie star, not very bright, and shockingly inept on the world stage, embarrassing in his meetings with Gorbachev. Both Bushes got the full treatment, in spite of the fact that the senior President Bush was a real war hero. George W. got us into an unnecessary war, ran it badly, “Bush lied,people died”, and although there weren’t any nukes, there were vast quantities of poison gasses. But everybody was tortured at Gitmo, and look how badly he performed with Hurricane Katrina. Iraq was a success until Obama snatched defeat from the path of victory. Democrats have always been rotten, but this time they have a young, ill-informed and passionately partisan media, easy to manipulate, as Ben Rhodes has told us.

President Donald Trump is doing a pretty remarkable job. The market is reaching new all-time highs, unemployment is low, consumer confidence is soaring, the cabinet is outstanding and getting important things done (which the Left really hates). His current Asian tour is impressive. His judicial nominees are outstanding, if the Senate will just get busy and confirm them all. I guess the problem is really us. We should be loudly celebrating the accomplishments. The Left runs on talking points and attempting to control the national conversation. Republicans are not inclined to brag and celebrate loudly, which I guess we should be doing. It is all about the national conversation and allowing Democrats to control that is a big mistake. This time they really have gone too far.



A Republican Proposes Over-the-Counter Birth Control, Liberals Have a Hissy-Fit! by The Elephant's Child
June 9, 2015, 9:50 pm
Filed under: Freedom, Politics, Women | Tags: , , ,

Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) has proposed new legislation to encourage over-the-counter status for birth control. Every medical authority agrees that birth control is advantageous for both individual women and society at large. Removing the prescription barrier would seem to be a great benefit to women, giving them more control over their own health-care choices, reducing costs and improving access.

Well, not so fast! The supposedly pro-woman Left were outraged. Planned Parenthood’s president claimed the bill “is a sham and an insult to women.” NARAL Pro-Choice America’s president called the idea “nothing but political pandering to trick women and families into thinking we are covered while dismantling one of the most critical gains in the Affordable Care Act.” Seventy percent of Americans favored making birth control available over-the-counter in a recent poll.

At the present, the federal government requires a prescription for birth control. The prescription requirement means that women must have a once a year visit to the doctor, for pelvic exams and Pap smears. That can help their physicians detect everything from sexually transmitted diseases to cervical cancer, it doesn’t tell them anything about whether a woman can safely take birth control. The World Health Organization and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have said that doctors can safely prescribe the pill without a full examination.

In 2013, the New York Times estimated that American women undergo more than 63 million pelvic exams a year. That comes at a huge cost to our health-care system, even disregarding the time women are forced to take off work to visit the doctor.

The examination alone costs around $125, and a Pap test adds roughly $40 to the expense, according to reports by the American Board of Internal Medicine’s nonprofit ABIM Foundation. Planned Parenthood alone makes around $1.2 billion each year from contraceptive services.

In order to attract women voters, the Left has forced insurers to offer “free” birth control as enshrined in ObamaCare. But of course, it is not free. Taxpayers are paying for it. The usual case when a mediation goes over-the-counter, is that competition increases and costs come down. Even now, a month’s supply is available for under $4.00. Nothing in the proposed legislation would necessarily cause insurers to stop covering it.

Making birth control over-the-counter would increase access, resulting in fewer unplanned pregnancies and abortions. The hysterical reaction of the supposedly pro-women organizations suggests that making birth control more available wasn’t really what they had in mind. They wanted their votes and they wanted women dependent on them.

These Voices Don’t Speak for the Rest of Us! by The Elephant's Child
August 17, 2010, 6:30 am
Filed under: Capitalism, Freedom, Politics, Statism | Tags: , ,

(h/t: Ace of Spades)

Pitchforks, Mr. President? by The Elephant's Child
April 4, 2009, 2:30 am
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Freedom, Politics | Tags: , , ,

President Barack Obama and his team met with the CEOs of the major American Banks recently in the White House.  As that meeting was taking place, Obama’s auto bailout team was meeting with GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner down the hall. The CEOs of Freddie Mac, Northern Trust, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bankers Trust and Bank of America were among those present.  They met briefly with the press as they left the meeting. Politico has a video of their statement here, which contrasts interestingly with the “rest of the story.”

Politico obtained more details of the meeting, confirmed by several sources. The meeting was designed to be austerely businesslike.  A glass of water was at each place around the long mahogany table, no ice.  The CEOs of the world’s most powerful financial institutions tried to explain the complications of their business to the president of the United States, and the necessity for competing for talent on an international market.

The president was in no mood to hear them out.  He stopped the conversation, and according to Politico, said” “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen, The Public isn’t buying that.”

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

This is an outrageous statement from a president who has been attempting to rouse public ire, and has sent his ACORN associates to scout out AIG executive homes, attempting to divert attention from the government’s responsibility for the economic crisis onto Wall Street and America’s financial institutions.  His takeover of American business continues apace.  You never want to let a crisis go to waste.

The executives said that economic recovery plans were already working, and told the president that they were anxious to repay TARP funds as soon as possible, and that they didn’t need it anymore.  They said that returning the funds would provide confidence to the market.

Obama was having none of that. He argued that returning funds too early would send “a bad signal.” He was clearly more interested in getting control of executive pay and benefits.  He urged pay reform and said rewards must be proportional, balanced, and tied to the health and success of the company.  Isn’t it remarkable that Democrats are so adamantly opposed to merit pay for teachers, where it would really benefit kids; and equally insistent that it is just the thing for executives of “capitalist enterprises.”

I find the attempt to stir up hate towards bank executives simply because they are highly paid, despicable.  Barney Frank has also been loudly anxious to get control of executive salaries.  I suppose that when you find that executives of the capitalist enterprises that you hate make a lot more money than the president does, it is more than a little annoying.  Economist Alan Reynolds has an excellent article on executive compensation here, and a measured discussion of bailouts here.  Both articles are short, and worth your time.

The attempt to demonize a few CEOs is populist politics, and unreasonable politics at that.  What really grates is Barney Frank posturing and demanding control of their remuneration, as if he was simply an innocent bystander. The president’s actions are more troubling.  He told us he was going to redistribute wealth.  We should have listened more closely.

This is not change, it is simply surreal.

%d bloggers like this: