Still listening for the new geniuses. The post Taylor Hawkins, Eminem and the skill of songwriting: “One step ahead of everybody” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The greatest leaders of free societies transcended partisanship. Not because they were absent of principle. To the contrary, they were driven by deep conviction in what they did, and they did so in relation to and in coordination with others. Rather, they were aware of the fundamental challenge of living in a polis — how to take a principled stand (whose rightness is not dependent on popular opinion, but because of the truth of the stand itself) united with others (without corrupting or compromising that stand). Those who love our country more than party, and who love truth more than anything do not shy away from critical opinion. It is no easy matter, and consequently, the well-known jibe that politics is the second-oldest profession. All too often, principles for politicians are just lipstick on a pig — a distraction from the slop and the stink. As ever, one must look for the best examples to see what the possibilities are and to avoid cheap cynicism. George Washington has been revered for setting the example of principled leadership in America. He was intensely aware that he was establishing the model for the future of the republic, that he had to show that the power concentrated by the Constitution in the hands of the Chief Executive would not lead necessarily to corruption. He gathered the best and the brightest around him, even though they had very different approaches — Jefferson and Hamilton sat in the first rank in his cabinet and Adams was his vice-president, each of whose approaches to American politics would bring them into sharp conflict with each of the others, whether during Washington’s administration or later on. Arguing for the Constitution, James Madison thought partisanship was inevitable: “The CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS” (Federalist 10). But Washington felt it necessary to strive for a national unity beyond parties. We the people had to choose not to let political differences fracture the republic into parties. Washington warned in his farewell address against all things that serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force — to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. Those interested in real leadership rather than indulgence of their needy ego welcome debate and do not seek yes-men in their inner circle. Lincoln was an example of that. His Cabinet choices were a fairly contentious and voluble group who debated with each other and with Lincoln. Lincoln picked a Democrat for about the most important position during his wartime administration — Secretary of War. Lincoln chose a Democrat for vice-president for his second term as well, intent on showing national unity as his overriding interest as the Civil War was coming to a close. Franklin Roosevelt also had someone from the other party as Secretary of War during World War II, Henry Stimson, who had also been Secretary of War under William Howard Taft and Secretary of State under Herbert Hoover. Stimson had a powerful voice and Roosevelt listened to him and to the army Chief of Staff, George Marshall. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: The Face of Evil Is Masquerading as ‘Joy’) Winston Churchill was most famous as war leader, when he ruled over an all-party government. His cabinet had men from all three major parties, with Laborite Clement Attlee as his Deputy Prime Minister and Ernest Bevin in charge of labor relations. He also had famously argued with his own party, severely criticizing their policy of appeasement. When events proved Churchill right, he first served in their cabinet. But that all-Conservative government could not survive the cascade of defeat of Spring 1940, and Chamberlain asked Churchill to form the new all-party government. Churchill kept Chamberlain in that government in a position of high responsibility. He wanted all the voices that could effectively speak for Britain together. He meant it. He listened. As did all of these leaders. They all faced terrible crises. They sought the spirit of their whole country in their council of power. They did not pretend to have all the answers. They wanted the best there to lend their insight and expertise and dedication. Faced with existential threats — the difficult first days of a unique new nation, a great civil war, a world war of unprecedented ferocity and destruction — they actively joined with those from a different perspective and a different party to face the crisis with the best response of a united nation. Reaching Beyond the Party The events of this last week or so, as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard endorsed Donald Trump’s candidacy and RFK Jr. joined Trump on stage show the growth of the Trump movement. It does not contradict anything that came before. It is rather the dawning recognition that the country is facing an existential threat from within: a deep state grown so corrupt that it has not hesitated to use the nation’s intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice to initiate political prosecutions at the highest level and to institute censorship in order to forcibly control the national conversation. The only divide that matters at this point is that of opposition or support to deep state thought control and political prosecution. The smaller debates over the proper role of government pale in comparison and can be set aside by all good citizens who still care for what the Constitution calls the “Republican Form of Government.” About 1,700 years ago, there was a remarkable partnership leading the community of Jewish exiles in what is today’s Iraq.  Head of the scholarly leadership was Rabbi Yochanan. His indispensable colleague’s was name Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish had been a gang leader in his youth. Rabbi Yochanan had seen his powerful potential and inspired him to change his ways. Reish Lakish became a superb scholar, brilliant and outspoken. The Talmud records many of the fierce debates between him and Rabbi Yochanan, through which the principles behind the law to which the people were devoted became clear. Though a younger man, Reish Lakish died well before his master. Many of the lesser scholars vied to fill Reish Lakish’s shoes, but lacking both the courage and the insight of the departed man, they wound up just finding various ways to justify and bring scholarly support to Rabbi Yochanan’s opinions. Finally, Rabbi Yochanan had had enough. He said to the aspiring young men, “None of you are equal to Reish Lakish, You all listen to my opinions and then bring me support from biblical verses and from rabbinic traditions that justify my thought. But I already knew those things! That is why I said what I said. But Reish Lakish — when I stated an opinion, he would bring me a dozen sources showing I was wrong! How I miss him!” Those who love our country more than party, and who love truth more than anything do not shy away from critical opinion. They ally themselves with all who seek the good of the land where they live, and find a way to unite them all for the general good. (READ MORE: Churchill Knew the War Must Be Won) We live in a time when that is essential. Trump has never been a party man. He has, rather, transformed the party to his vision. That vision is now resonating with important figures far beyond the Republican Party, whose support of what Trump is fighting for will be a potent factor in shaping a national recovery and a Trump victory. The post Trump’s Vision Transcends the Party appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Pro-life Americans once had a staunch and vocal champion in former President Donald Trump, but his statements on abortion over the past year have given many cause for concern. Most recently, Trump said that Florida’s current six-week abortion ban is “too short” and that there “has to be more time” for a pregnant mother to seek to end her unborn baby’s life, indicating that he would support — and encourage others to support — a pro-abortion amendment on the Sunshine State’s ballot this November. American conservatives were forced to settle for compromise-gurus, political hacks who would talk a big game without ever intending to play. The Trump campaign quickly issued a statement to counter the backlash, saying, “President Trump has not yet said how he will vote on the ballot initiative in Florida, he simply reiterated that he believes six weeks is too short.” The following day, Friday, Trump told reporters that he would, in fact, be voting against the abortion amendment. “The Democrats are radical because the nine months is just a ridiculous situation where you can do an abortion in the ninth month,” the 45th President said. “Some of the states, like Minnesota and other states, have it where you can actually execute the baby after birth. And all of that stuff is unacceptable.” While Trump’s pivot on the abortion amendment and his clarification that he will be opposing it is commendable, it did not occur in a vacuum. According to Paul Brown, policy director at Abolish Abortion Texas, Trump was responding to pressure from pro-lifers, who launched an impromptu grassroots campaign condemning his tacit endorsement of the abortion amendment. Brown said that Trump’s clear opposition to Florida’s abortion amendment is “a sign that our pressure worked. It’s also a sign we need to keep going. Don’t let up.” He added that Trump “needs to start talking tough about abortion, and he needs to start now. Bottom line, he needs to acknowledge that it’s murder, that all of it is totally wrong and unacceptable, and he needs to reverse his previous statements about opposing a national ban, etc.” Earlier this year, in an apparent bid to present himself as a more appealing choice to independent, moderate, and ex-Democrat voters, Trump announced that he would be leaving the issue of abortion to the states, following the demise of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Since then, Trump’s team led the GOP in removing pro-life commitments from the party’s 2024 platform and recently said that his administration “will be great for women and their reproductive rights.” One of the reasons Trump soared to the White House in 2016 — and actually increased in popularity in 2020 — is because he gave a voice to the voiceless. For too long, American conservatives were forced to settle for compromise-gurus, political hacks who would talk a big game without ever intending to play. Candidates and politicians would talk of their faith, their morals, and their love of country, and then proceed to ignore every issue except foreign policy, foreign aid, and beefing up corporations. Trump was, in his own words, “built different.” He put three Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who overturned Roe v. Wade. He signed an executive order protecting unborn children once a heartbeat is detected. He was the first U.S. President to make an appearance at the March for Life, not only acknowledging the campaign’s existence and importance, but encouraging his countrymen to defend unborn life. This strategy — giving voice to the voiceless, standing up for the most vulnerable of Americans when no one else will — has been a winning strategy. Countless Christians are now dismayed and distraught over the former President’s cryptic (and, in some cases, painfully non-cryptic) comments on leaving unborn children to fend for themselves. Trump would be wise to recognize that Americans do not want compromise. Certainly, the ravenous abortion cult will suffer no compromise, rendering Trump’s wheedling on the subject futile: he is only damaging his credibility with his own base. To ensure November 2024 is a MAGA landslide, Trump may want to remember the champion for life that he once was — and can be again. READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Disgracefully, a Catholic Cardinal Fronts for Abortion The Atrocity Known as ‘Catholics for Kamala’ The post Trump Waffles on Florida’s Abortion Amendment appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — “My values did not change,” Kamala Harris asserted during her Thursday interview with CNN’s Dana Bash. Lucky for Harris, Bash did not press the vice president to give an honest reckoning on her record as a prosecutor and her newfound, election-year positions on border policy and fracking. She could take a position on Skechers, but not ballot measures that addressed sentencing for convicted criminals. Harris’ first sit-down interview with a journalist since President Joe Biden endorsed her for the Democratic Party presidential nomination was embarrassing to watch. Throughout her career in public office, a constant take on Harris has been her reputation for being underprepared for key events. Harris seemed unprepared Thursday night when she couldn’t even give a concise answer to the predictable question as to what she would do on her first day in office, if she is elected. It was political malpractice. Fortunately for Harris, CNN has swallowed whole the ridiculous notion that Harris is not your typical San Francisco progressive. Author Michael Eric Dyson gushed on the network that Harris is “not far-left.” Even Mike Dubke, former Trump White House communications director, asserted, “She was to the right of most citizens in San Francisco but to the left of most senators in the U.S. Senate.” I first met Harris when I was a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. She became San Francisco district attorney in 2004, after running on the promise that she would not seek the death penalty for murderers. Not to the right of San Francisco. As she talked to CNN, Harris brought up her history of prosecuting transnational criminal organizations that traffic in guns, drugs, and human beings — which should be on the to-do list of any big-city DA. It’s the job. In 2014, when she was California’s attorney general, Harris refused to endorse or oppose Proposition 47, which downgraded some offenses, including shoplifting property valued at less than $950, from felonies to misdemeanors. The alleged reason for her neutrality was that as AG, Harris wrote titles and summaries for ballot initiatives, making it a conflict of interest to take sides. But her predecessor, Dan Lungren, took positions on ballot measures. As AG in 2015, Harris supported a Department of Corrections policy of not funding transgender surgeries for inmates. But by 2019, she seemed to have changed. As the Washington Blade reported, she declared, “On that issue I will tell you I vehemently disagree and in fact worked behind the scenes to ensure that the Department of Corrections would allow transitioning inmates to receive the medical attention that they required, they needed, and deserved.” So it seems the question is: What are Kamala Harris’ values? Bash forgot to ask. Citing Harris’ non-position on Proposition 47, Michael Rushford of the pro-enforcement Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento called Harris “a reluctant ally at her best.” For me, Harris will always be one of those headline-seeking politicians most interested in cases that generate positive press coverage. For example, she was one of a number of state attorneys general in 2012 who went after Skechers for making unfounded claims about the footwear’s role in promoting weight loss. I’m all for AGs going after corporations that sell goods that hurt people or otherwise endanger public health. But this was just a publicity grab. And here’s the worst part: She could take a position on Skechers, but not ballot measures that addressed sentencing for convicted criminals. “It seems like, to me, she was always looking for the next job,” Rushford told me. “Guess what? It worked.” Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM READ MORE from Debra J. Saunders: Zuckerberg Says Facebook Will Be ‘Neutral.’ Too Little, Too Late. Kamala Harris Misses Her Chance The post CNN’s Softball Interview for a Softball Candidate appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The critics have been unmerciful in their reviews of the movie Reagan which features Dennis Quaid in the titular role. Inspired by The American Spectator editor Paul Kengor’s book  The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism,  the film has been widely derided as a “hagiography” that preaches to the choir of supporters of the 40th U.S. president. Even National Review barely mustered a compliment. “And to the extent that Quaid served as a jukebox playing some of Reagan’s greatest hits, there were enjoyable moments — and some that were quite moving.”  The critics have misunderstood the movie just as they probably misunderstood the Reagan presidency. The film also readily admits that Reagan was a B actor although subtle homage is played to Knute Rockne: All American (1940) and  Kings Row (1942). Directed by Sean McNamara, the ensemble film also stars Penelope Ann Miller as Nancy Reagan, Jon Voight as fictional KGB agent Viktor Petrovich, Mena Suvari as Reagan’s first wife actress Jane Wyman,  C. Thomas Howell as Casper Weinberger, Xander Berkeley as George Schultz, Amanda Righetti as Reagan’s mother Nell, and Lesley-Anne Down as Margaret Thatcher. (READ MORE from Leonora Cravotta: Hit Man Is Destined To Become a Hit) Reagan opens with the 1981 assassination attempt at the DC Hilton Hotel before flashing back to Reagan’s childhood in Dixon, Illinois. The narrative then jumps back to 1981 with Reagan famously endeavoring to diffuse his brush with death  with the words “I forgot to duck.” The focus on the Hilton Hotel shooting imbues the film with a Twilight Zone-type aura given the recent assassination attempt on former president and 2024 presidential candidate Donald Trump. Critics have widely derided screenplay writer Howard Klausner’s decision to use the fictional KGB agent Viktor Petrovich (Voight) as the story’s present-day narrator. Petrovich discusses his 40-year obsession with Reagan in conversations with another fictional character, a rising young Russian politician Andrei Novikov (Alex Sparrow). Petrovich in these exchanges makes it clear that he identified Reagan as a Western threat to Russia decades before he became President of the United States and that Reagan’s anticommunist leanings started burgeoning when he became president of the Screen Actors Guild. While there are risks with injecting fictional characters into a bio picture,  the tactic worked effectively in Reagan because Jon Voight is such an authentic actor who disseminates a thousand tales with a mere change in facial expression or a pause in speech.  Dennis Quaid does a masterful job of embodying Reagan’s voice and facial expressions while avoiding direct imitation. While his actual physical resemblance to the 40th president even with prosthetics is a stretch, he so exudes Reagan’s spirit from every pore, if you closed your eyes,  you would think it was Reagan speaking. Penelope Ann Miller should also be commended for her nuanced portrayal of Nancy Reagan. Given that the left-leaning media habitually diminished Mrs.Reagan during her lifetime, Miller’s performance endows the former first lady with a refreshing intelligence and warmth. As for the allegations that the film is propaganda that whitewashes history, the critics have mistaken nostalgia for the optimism that Reagan always projected as hero worship. Reagan is presented as a morally imperfect individual. After all, he was the first divorced U.S. president. The film also readily admits that Reagan was a B actor although subtle homage is played to Knute Rockne: All American (1940) and  Kings Row (1942), which are considered to be his best films. While the film has been accused of “glossing over” the negative flashpoints of Reagan’s presidency, including the AIDS epidemic and the “Iran-Contra” scandal, it is important to remember that the film is a biopicture not a documentary. And as an entertainment vehicle, it highlights the former actor’s excellent communication skills and his most memorable lines such as “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”  which he famously uttered in his scripted address at the Berlin Wall’s Brandenberg’s Gate on June 12, 1987. (READ MORE: The Fall Guy Honors Stunt People, Traditional Values)  My only complaint about the film is that I would have liked to have heard more about Reagan’s relationship with Jane Wyman and consequently seen more of the very talented Mena Suvari. But again, as the film clocked in at 135 minutes, it would have been difficult to add more to the story. I highly recommend Reagan as an engaging, well-acted portrait of the 40th U.S. president Ronald Wilson Reagan. Moreover, this film is a reminder that while the world was not perfect during his presidency, as the commander-in-chief, Reagan always conveyed optimism. There was always the possibility of another “morning in America.” The post Critics Be Damned: The Reagan Film Is Wonderful appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

For the first time since a ban against face masks became law in New York State’s Nassau Country, a man was arrested for appearing masked in public. Weslin Omar Ramirez Castillo, an illegal migrant from Guatemala, was dressed in all black and was wearing a ski mask in hot August weather. He was not a protestor but he was found to be carrying a 14 inch knife. Support for laws to ban Ku Klux Klan-like face and head coverings have gained support in both New York and California. Various interest groups are already up in arms. They fear that this first-of-a-kind ban will be selectively enforced, mainly against people of color, against illegal migrants, against pro-Palestine activists, and against disabled individuals who are afraid of contracting Covid. Bizarrely, face-masking is also seen as a form of free speech. For such reasons, those in charge of American universities cannot seem to find a way to ban face masks. Such face coverings, which obscure one’s identity, are worn by criminals, burglars, terrorists, kidnappers, and by those students and outside activists who want all the privileges of “free speech,” but only for themselves. Their “speech” often includes property damage, harassment, and civil unrest but they do not want to be held accountable for either their views or their crimes. Thus, they hide behind masks, in cowardly anonymity.  (READ MORE from Phyllis Chesler: The Stakes for Women in This Election Are Enormous) Since 10/7, the most aggressive anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-Palestine/pro-Hamas activists have shut down campuses, vandalized campus property, terrorized Jewish and other students, stopped traffic, and harassed civilians while disguised, wearing keffiyehs around their necks or on their faces. Some young, non-Muslim white women, also wore the a hijab (head covering), and sometimes a niqab (Islamic face coverings), to support Palestine/Hamas. For a long time, I have viewed the burqa (full body covering), niqab, and sometimes even hijab, as a violation of women’s rights as well as a health and security hazard. The burqa is a sensory deprivation isolation chamber, a moveable prison, a garment that removes women from society. The niqab also makes identification difficult and makes it impossible for a woman to dine in public with male colleagues who are non-family members. Moroccan feminist, Fatima Mernissi, and Tunisian feminist, Samia Labidi, both viewed hijab as an incendiary political symbol, denoting oppressive patriarchal control, not as a legal, religious obligation. It is a forced, not a free choice. There is a lively debate among Muslim feminists about this issue in terms of whether the state, especially a non-Muslim state, has the right to tell women how to dress or whether such rights belong to the family, the mosque, or to the woman alone. Some view the hijab and the niqab as a form of “resistance” to Western ways and believe that veiled women are more liberated than those who wear bikinis. Many American student activists seem to agree with this line of reasoning. But here’s something else to consider for all those who view face masking as a Muslim religious right. Historically other countries, including Muslim countries, have not hesitated to ban the hijab, the niqab, the burqa, and the chador (an open cloak). During the 1920s and 1930s, Kings, Shahs, and Presidents unveiled their female citizens and Muslim feminists campaigned for open faces in public. They were successful in Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran to name but a few countries. (READ MORE: Why Are Women in America Cheering for Hamas and Iran?) My favorite tale took place in Afghanistan, when Shah Amanullah Khan (1919-1929) scandalized the populace by permitting his wife to go unveiled. By 1928, he urged Afghan women to uncover their faces and advocated the shooting of interfering husbands. He said that he himself would supply the weapons and promised that no inquiries would be instituted against the women. Once, when he saw a woman wearing a burqa in public, he tore it off and burned it. Alas, poor Amanullah was exiled and the country plunged back into the past — at least until the 1960s when some modernization took place in the cities until the death-eating Taliban arose. In 1926 in Iran, Reza Shah provided police protection for Iranian women who chose to dispense with the traditional scarf. Within a decade, he ordered all teachers and wives of ministers, and high military officials to wear European clothes and hats rather than chadors. Nearly a century later, in 2007 and 2009, the President of Tajikistan, a Muslim-majority country, banned the hijab. Why? According to a Tajikistani-American friend, this was done to stop the Arab Sunni radicalization of the country, to safeguard national cultural values, combat superstition and extremism, and to return the country to Tajikistan’s indigenous culture. The Tajikistani President-for-Life was alarmed by the spread of Arab Sunni Muslim imperialism and the accompanying terrorism. The chattering classes and the legal gliterrati in America say that banning is a very complex issue. What if one wears a face mask for religious reasons? (That custom applies only to women though — why are the male activists dressing like women?) Support for laws to ban Ku Klux Klan-like face and head coverings have gained support in both New York and California. There is a Black-Jewish coalition in favor of banning masks at protests. Hazel Dukes, President of the NAACP New York State Conference, said: “Black communities know all too well that individuals who hide their identities with intent to terrorize, intimidate, or harass are a threat to all our safety and have no place in New York.” The Foundation for Individual Rights views the First Amendment as Protecting the right to speak anonymously, “shielding individuals from retaliation for expressing dissenting or unpopular ideas.” Support for Palestine is not dissent, as this view seems to be popular globally and on campuses. The issue here is not free speech; it is vandalism and intimidation, harassment, and violence against Jewish/Zionist students, professors, and others. It is incitement based on lethal lies that always leads to violence, Brownshirt behavior that should no longer be coddled. Even France and Belgium, two countries often appropriately deemed solicitous of Islamic extremism, banned the burqa and the niqab long ago. Every state in the union should pass religion-neutral bans on face masks. The post Ban Face Masks: Our Safety Requires It appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Candidate Kamala Harris says her healthcare plans — “HarrisHealth” — are “for-the-people” and will “insure everyone in America.”  She attacks candidate Trump’s proposals saying he will take away care from millions of Americans and will “throw granny off the cliff.” The more she enrolls people in government insurance, the less care people get. The two candidates have diametrically opposite answers for our failing healthcare system. Harris sees the solution as more government involvement and Trump wants to give patients more control. Ignoring campaign-driven hyperbole and each side’s dire predictions for the other side’s plans, what do they propose and what are the likely effects? Trump Healthcare Proposals Continuing his MAGA theme, Trump’s plan is called Health Reform to Make America Great Again. He would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA, “Obamacare”); make insurance premiums fully deductible on federal taxes; allow insurance sales across state lines; and offer Medicaid block grants to the states. Clearly, he intends to reduce the federal footprint in healthcare. The media has consistently touted the ACA as “popular” based on the millions of Americans who enrolled in expanded Medicaid. After all, it is free for many of them, so what’s not to love?! The ACA is not so popular with those who actually need medical care — they can’t get it. Fewer and fewer doctors are willing to care for Medicaid patients because of low payments and the regulatory burden.  Medicaid patients wait so long for care, they die while waiting, called death-by-queue. When a patient with Medicaid dies in hospital, his family suddenly discovers government insurance isn’t so free. There is MERP, the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program, that allows the state to recoup the decedent’s medical expenses plus a large administrative fee from the surviving family, including putting a lien on the family home. The repeal of ACA would significantly reduce Medicaid roles taking away insurance from several million Americans. A large but unknown number will restore their employer-provided insurance. Interestingly, repeal of ACA would increase access to care for tens of millions by the seesaw effect. As fewer people are enrolled in Medicaid, fewer dollars go to insurance companies, and more dollars become available to pay for care. Trump plans to allow Americans to deduct health insurance premiums against federal income taxes. This would cause an infinitesimal reduction in federal revenue and give a large boost to the buying power of take-home pay. Approving the sale of insurance across state lines increases competition, driving down prices. With more money in their pockets and lower prices, Americans will have more health care options, such as direct-pay care. Medicaid block grants to the states are a good idea on many levels. First, it restores the original Medicaid law which includes “Section 1801: Prohibition against any federal interference.” Medicaid was always supposed to be state-structured, not federal one-size-fits-all. Second, states know their needs and resources better than Washington and can use Medicaid dollars more efficiently to deliver care, especially when relieved of the federal regulatory shackles. Third, block grants stop the unremitting increase in both federal and state spending. Fourth, fewer healthcare dollars will be wasted on Washington’s BARRCOME — bureaucracy, administration, rules, regulations, compliance, oversight, mandates, and enforcement. Finally, some states may want work requirements, or different eligibility standards, or higher payment schedules. With block grants, they are free to tailor their programs for the specific needs of their state residents. HarrisHealth Kamala Harris would start by making increased ACA subsidies permanent. These increases were passed in 2021 to compensate for the loss of income due to federal mandatory lockdowns during CoViD. A sunset clause was built in so that when the mandates were rescinded (as they have been) the increases would also sunset. Harris wants to keep the increases despite the unnecessary extra spending. This is, after all, an election year. Harris would accelerate Medicaid expansion, giving more people free … oops, no-charge, government insurance. At its height in 2022, 94 million Americans had Medicaid/CHIP coverage — 28 percent of the population of the entire country was enrolled in a program designed exclusively “to increase benefits under the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance System.” Harris has approved, but doesn’t publicize, the enrollment of illegals in Medicaid, starting with 100,000 children. In her drive to insure all Americans, Harris ignores or refuses to accept the seesaw effect. The more she enrolls people in government insurance, the less care people get. She will accept a false facade of success —– zero uninsured rate — for the disaster of more Americans succumbing to death-by-queue. Harris wants all Americans dependent on government insurance. Despite her current strategic, campaign-driven silence on Bernie Sanders’ exceedingly unpopular Medicare-for-All (M-4-All), single payer plan. For years, she has been a whole-hearted supporter. M-4-All is a complete takeover of healthcare by the federal government. It abolishes all public and private insurance, except Tricare and Indian Health Service, and enrolls everyone in a single one-size-fits-all federal plan. Patients pay nothing, except in higher taxes, much higher taxes. The top rate in Sweden’s single payer, cradle-to-grave healthcare system is 52.2 percent. With M-4-All that Harris will impose on us, Washington decides what care you get, when, where, by whom, and even if. Washington credentials, licenses, and punishes care providers. Woe unto physicians who oppose Washington narratives. Just as during CoViD, they will be censored, canceled, and fired. With M-4-All, there will likely be a mass exodus of senior physicians. Then, who will care for today’s patients or teach tomorrow’s doctors? In addition to her failure to accept the seesaw effect, HarrisHealth ignores fiscal impacts of her plans. Expanded ACA subsidies nearly doubled the cost of benchmark private insurance premiums from $244 per month (2013) to $477 per month (2024). Medicaid expansion diverts more money to insurance companies and BARRCOME, leaving less for patients. The Commonwealth Fund calculated that Trump’s healthcare plans could add as much as $41 billion to the national debt. The M-4-All that Harris wants to impose on us eventually will cost $40 trillion. In addition to bringing more death-by-queue to the U.S., HarrisHealth would cost 1,000 times more than what Trump proposes. Voters: You choose. Deane Waldman, M.D., MBA is Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Pathology, and Decision Science; former Director of the Center for Healthcare Policy at Texas Public Policy Foundation; former director, New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange; and author of 12 books including the multi-award winning Curing the Cancer in U.S. Healthcare: StatesCare and Market-Based Medicine.   READ MORE from Deane Waldman: Wait Times for Medical Care Matter There’s a Tiny ‘Bubble’ That Could Save Healthcare The post Health Care: Trump vs. Harris appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

As a child, I loved clouds. I would spend lazy summer afternoons on my back in the grass in my parents’ front yard under a massive maple tree watching the clouds float by and my siblings and I would tell one another stories based on their shapes. “There is no skin color, because the skin is mummified, but you can see it  … The expert doctors can see Teresa’s face almost clearly.” We had active imaginations. The spiritual world was very real to us. I remember, at one point, telling my younger sisters that the rays of sun streaming down to earth between the folds of a massive front of clouds were the ladders angels used to visit us — as far as I remember, I fully believed it. (RELATED: Living Crucifixes: The Phenomenon of Stigmata) No one knows the exact moment we lose our childlike belief in the otherworldly. Perhaps it is when we learn that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, or maybe we develop our skepticism in high school and college when we come to suspect that we know everything there is to know and have experienced everything there is to experience. I’ve never lost my faith but at some point, when I wasn’t paying attention, my beliefs became rooted in the tangible things I could experience. Sure, God and the angels exist, but thunderstorms aren’t the result of God crying over lost sinners and angels aren’t climbing down from heaven on sun-bathed ladders. Women Are Fighting Against Spirits, Principalities, and Powers We often don’t know how far we’ve moved from our childhood simplicity until we come across something — a claim, a person, an experience — that makes us react in a very different way than we might have in years past. For me, that thing was Carrie Gress’s book, The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Feminity.  Specifically, it was Gress’s assertion towards the very beginning of the book that feminism has demonic influences. Gress points to ancient demons — including those going under the names Jezebel and Lilith — as key players in the growth of feminism as an ideology that requires women to deny the intrinsic calling of motherhood. Further, she cites the growth of occult practices and “goddess circles” as evidence that women are actively inviting these demons into their lives. (READ MORE: Young Believers Are Fueling a Renaissance of Catholic Culture) For those unfamiliar with Gress’s research, it’s worth taking into account — especially for young women as they try to figure out what their place in society ought to look like. If true, it makes the battle for the hearts and minds of modern women about more than just preference, it makes it a battle against spirits, principalities, and powers. That consideration requires an openness to the idea that the spiritual world is very much involved in the physical world as we experience it. I’ll be perfectly honest, despite being raised in a large Catholic family reading the stories of the saints, that idea makes me uncomfortable. The trouble is, while skepticism is sometimes healthy, it can also be a fault. St. Teresa Found to Be Still Incorrupt During Recent Investigation Accounting for the reality and impact of demonic forces on our lives is one thing. But every once in a while, God gives us hard-hearted, skeptical adults something physical to chew on. This week, that thing was the discovery that the renowned mystic, reformer, and doctor of the Catholic Church, St. Teresa of Avila, is still incorrupt. On Wednesday, Discalced Carmelites in Alba de Tormes processed from the Basilica de Sancta Teresa to a room specially reserved for studying her remains while singing the Te Deum. Once there, they opened the saint’s silver tomb for the first time in 110 years in the presence of scientists, ecclesiastical authorities, and the artisans necessary to get the tomb open. Her body appears to be in the same condition it was in 1914 — i.e., it is not dust. (READ MORE by Aubrey Gulick: A Clash of Sacred Sounds: Ancient Liturgical Music vs. Contemporary Praise and Worship) The postulator general of the order, Father Marco Chiesa, confirmed that, while the images taken in 1914 are black-and-white, they clearly reveal that the exposed parts (St. Teresa’s face and foot), look the same as they did then. “There is no color,” he said. “There is no skin color, because the skin is mummified, but you can see it, especially the middle of the face … The expert doctors can see Teresa’s face almost clearly.” So no, she doesn’t look like she fell asleep yesterday. But she’s looking miraculously well for a woman who died 442 years ago. Events like this one — and the recent confirmation by the diocese of Kansas City-St. Louis that Sister Wilhelmina of Gower, Mo., also seems to be incorrupt — are, without a doubt, signs that the spiritual is not so far away from the physical. A few days ago, I was driving on the highway when I happened to look up at the clouds above me. There was an afternoon thunderstorm rolling in from the West, and sun rays were poking through the edges of tall purple clouds. For some reason, the child in me woke up. Perhaps, I thought, the angels are coming down their golden ladders. We certainly need them now more than ever. The post Spiritual Reality Check: St. Teresa of Avila Found To Be Still Incorrupt appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

'The Electoral College is So Stupid'—Part Two