Mediaboss Marketing

When Lehigh Valley Congressman Charlie Dent and other House moderates met with President Trump about the faltering Obamacare repeal bill on Thursday, Trump reportedly was not happy to hear that the Pennsylvania lawmaker intended to vote "no."

During that meeting, which came after House GOP leaders had postponed an expected vote on their bill, Dent reiterated his "no" vote,according to the New York Times.

Trump then "angrily informed Dent that he was 'destroying the Republican Party' and 'was going to take down tax reform and Im going to blame you,'" the newspaper reported.

Asked about the reported interaction during an interview Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet the Press,"Dent responded: "Im not going to deny that."

Dent, who had repeatedly expressed concernsabout the tax credits being too small and the effect of Medicaid changes on Pennsylvania and other states that had expanded their low-income health insurance program, said he "listened very respectfully" to what the president had to say during the meeting.

But the Pennsylvania legislator, whose district includes Lehigh County and part of Northampton County, reiterated his frustration with the process leading up to the repeal bill being pulled from consideration Friday due to a lack of support.

"My bottom line is this: this discussion hasbeen far too much about artificial timelines, arbitrary deadlines, all to effect the baseline on tax reform," Dent said, referring the intention outlined by the administration and others to use the savings from Obamacare reforms to pay for tax changes.

He continued: "This conversation should be more about the people whose lives are going to be impacted by our decisions on their health care. We did not have enoughof a substantive discussion."

Excerpt from:
Did President Trump tell Charlie Dent that he's 'destroying the Republican Party'? - Allentown Morning Call

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

The grand Republican plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare was yanked from the House floor Friday, just before it was to be voted on. The reason the bill, called the American Health Care Act, failed so spectacularly is that despite much last-minute whipping from President Trump, the votes simply were not there.

This leads to one overwhelming and unavoidable conclusion: The Republican Party is broken.

In the frictionless world of political science, a healthy political party is supposed to advocate a set of principles and policies, and should they achieve electoral victory, implement them. Then at the next election, voters get the chance to pass judgment on their platform, either confirming their vision or throwing them out in favor of another party with different ideas.

Now, even at the best of times that's not always what happens. Often parties are punished for sheer bad luck, as when a global financial crisis happens to strike during their term.

But Republicans are not even remotely close to the ideal. Instead they have spent the political fuel of social conservatism and hatred of liberals and especially racist resentment of the first black president on vicious cuts to social programs and taxes on the rich. But the GOP also realizes that the true power source of their politics, and the obvious fact that their cuts would brutalize the poor and working class solely to further enrich the fantastically wealthy, are simply too uncomfortable to admit.

That in turn means that ceaseless duplicity, both towards the public and themselves, has become the signature feature of American conservatism. They swore up and down that deleting the welfare state would unleash free-market utopia that would work out better for everyone. Meanwhile, conservative writers made a cottage industry out of ludicrously tendentious historical revisionism insisting that actually, Democrats are the real racists.

This intellectual rot partially explains the party's retreat into denial of other inconvenient facts, like climate change and evolution, as well as their accelerating tendency towards electoral cheating. The story of voter ID laws where Republicans sensed electoral advantage in preventing liberals from voting (especially black ones) and ginned up a quick, obviously false, cover story by insisting that actually, Democrats are the real cheaters, mirrors the story on racism and welfare exactly.

Donald Trump partially cracked open the party's contradictions. Revisionist history of the civil rights movement became simply laughable when he ran on naked bigotry against Muslims and immigrants, attracting a coterie of overt white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and still won traditional Republican constituencies. But he also promised to leave social insurance alone during the Republican primary, and benefited from it. For a time it seemed the party might reorient along more honest lines.

But President Trump is also incurious and disinterested in policy. When Speaker Paul Ryan put forth his libertarian-lite plan to drastically reduce ObamaCare subsidies and gut Medicaid so that the stinking rich can have a big tax cut, Trump halfheartedly swung his weight behind it.

But it is simply a fact that virtually no one wants this sort of policy. What most rank-and-file Republicans hate about ObamaCare is that Obama passed it. Meanwhile, the ultra-conservative faction in the House predictably wanted even more vicious cruelty. When Ryan and Trump tried to buy them off with more poor-mulching goodies, they started hemorrhaging votes from their moderate wing. (And somewhat remarkably, even the most conservative Democrats aren't touching this turd.)

What's more, their revisions were amazingly incompetent, increasing the price of the bill by $186 billion over 10 years without improving coverage in the slightest. And then they made yet more revisions before the final vote without even waiting for a CBO score, desperately trying to pass it on to the Senate (where it was almost certainly doomed). But instead, Republicans just faceplanted right out of the gate.

Now, they have plenty of time to take another bite at the policy apple. But when a party is led by a buffoon with neither interest in nor ability to understand policy details, and has been drip-fed on a diet of increasingly nutty lies for decades, this is what you get.

More here:
The malfunctioning Republican Party - The Week Magazine

Hong Kongs chief executive-elect Carrie Lam has denied knowing about prosecutions of pro-democracy activists. Photograph: Anthony Wallace/AFP/Getty Images

Hong Kong police have started a crackdown on pro-democracy lawmakers and activists, informing at least nine people they will be charged for their involvement in a series of street protests more than two years ago.

The charges come a day after Carrie Lam was elected to be the citys chief executive. Heavily backed by the Chinese government, she has promised to heal divisions in an increasingly polarised political climate; pro-Beijing elites and businesses have repeatedly clashed with grassroots movements demanding more democracy.

For nearly three months in 2014, protesters surrounded the main government offices and blocked roads in the heart of Hong Kongs financial district. While several high-profile cases were brought in the months after, the vast majority of protesters were not charged.

On Monday the government announced it would prosecute two politicians, Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun. The others charged are former student protest leaders Eason Chung and Tommy Cheung, and the founders of the Occupy Central movement, Benny Tai, Rev Chu Yiu-ming and Chan Kin-man. Activist Raphael Wong and former legislator Lee Wing-tat will also be charged.

This isnt just my case being prosecuted, its prosecution against Hong Kongs democracy, Chan said in an interview. Lam said her first job would be to reunite Hong Kong people and this will make that task much more difficult.

All nine surrendered to police on Monday, with activists rallying around them in support.

The current chief executive, Leung Chun-ying, has taken unprecedented steps in recent months to remove pro-democracy politicians from office. Two were barred from taking their seats last year, and the government has launched legal challenges against four other legislators.

I feel very sad, the government hasnt tried to to heal the wounds in society, Shiu said just before turning himself in to police. I respect the law, but the timing is very deliberate.

Supporters from Hong Kongs pro-democracy political parties and organisations rallied around the accused, some holding signs reading the revolt is justified, protesting is not a crime.

Several hundred gathered outside Hong Kong police headquarters and chanted calls for full democracy. Activists said the prosecutions and Lams election had reinvigorated the pro-democracy camp.

If Chan or Shiu are jailed for more than a month, they could lose their seats in the legislative council. The charge of creating a public nuisance carries a maximum penalty of seven years in jail.

Leung is trying to change the result of the legislative election through the courts, Chan said. This is a well planned and well designed action, the timing is very critical.

Shiu echoed concerns that the prosecutions could be an attempt to eject himself and Chan from the legislature.

Lam said she did not know about the arrests in advance.

I made it very clear that I want to unite society and bridge the divide that has been causing us concern, Lam said at a press conference. But all these actions should not compromise the rule of law in Hong Kong.

The protests that led to the charges were sparked by the Chinese governments decision to vet candidates for the chief executive. Beijings reform package was voted down, and only 1,194 or 0.03% of registered voters could cast a ballot in Sundays election.

Lam met student leaders of the pro-democracy protests in 2014, and ended up taking a hard line against concessions on the political reform offered by Beijing.

It is unclear why the government waited more than two years to prosecute the protesters and the police did not respond to multiple requests seeking comment.

Originally posted here:
Hong Kong democracy activists charged hours after election of new city leader - The Guardian

I'm ashamed to say that I can't remember whether or not I met PC Keith Palmer, the policeman murdered by Khalid Masood in Parliament last week. I have been in and out through those gates often enough, greeted in that polite, slightly wry manner that British coppers use. But, like most people, I would generally just grunt "morning," often with minimal eye contact. (As you'll have noticed, this is another British specialty.)

It is easy to take the police for granted, to see them almost as wisecracking gatekeepers. Palmer's death reminded me that these smiling, sardonic men will, when the need arises, place themselves between me and a murder weapon. From now on, I'm going to thank them properly.

Lots of politicians and journalists will be thinking similar thoughts. That's what made the attack on Parliament so effective in propaganda terms. It's not simply that reporters were nearby; it's that many of them, locked inside the Palace of Westminster, were part of the story themselves.

Then there's the history. Although we Brits can be unspeakably rude about our MPs, we still think of Parliament itself as a symbol of national freedom. We have a half-memory, somewhere at the back of our collective mind, of a smoke-wreathed Westminster Hall standing defiantly among the Nazi bombs. A terrorist abomination in the center of a provincial city would not have had the same impact, either psychologically or in news terms.

But please try to keep a sense of perspective. There has been only one casualty of Islamist violence in Britain since the 2005 Tube bombings: Lee Rigby, an off-duty soldier who was mown down by a car as he cycled outside his barracks and then hacked to death. His murderers, like the attacker in Westminster, had no access to bombs or firearms. They, too, used the most basic weapons of all: a car and a knife.

A vehicle can be deadly, of course, as the appalling attacks in Nice and Berlin demonstrated. Still, it is worth pondering the fact that the most serious jihadi attack in Britain since 2005 involved some idiots driving into Glasgow Airport, evidently under the impression that this would set it on fire. They scrambled from their burning car only to be beaten up by a nearby baggage handler.

The scarcity of attacks tells us something of the imbalance of forces. On one side stand some of the world's best counter-terrorism experts, whose successes, in the form of forestalled atrocities, can never be truly counted. On the other stand some numbskulls with cars and knives.

We should treat them as what they are: losers with laughable underwear bombs and a pleasing tendency to blow themselves up in error. But we don't. We write them up as members of a sinister global terrorist network. We describe them as a threat to the state. I heard one supposed terrorism expert preposterously telling Fox News that the attack had "brought London to a standstill." The only sign of a "standstill" I saw was a notice on a bus about "delays around Westminster." Light snow causes more disruption, for Heaven's sake.

But no one has an incentive to downplay terrorism. The academic expert, the police chief, the spook, the journalist: all come together in consciously or subconsciously wanting to magnify the drama. No politician dares point out that you are statistically more likely to be killed by a toddler than by a jihadi. So we carry on taking these losers at something close to their own estimate that is, as soldiers engaged in a civilizational war. It is precisely this illicit glamor that draws lonely and alienated young men to political violence in the first place.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Will attend an international summit on women's issues next month.

03/27/17 1:32 PM

The Chinese don't report terrorist incidents, seeing no reason to give insurgents publicity. In consequence, terrorism is rare in China. Yet when Le Monde, applying the same logic, declined to print the names of the perpetrators of the Paris attacks, wishing to deny them a sense of martyrdom, it was widely criticized.

In the aftermath of the London attack, every commentator including, I'm afraid, this one reached for the same clich. It was, we said, "an attack on democracy." But the real danger to democracy is that we respond in a way that cheapens our values while at the same time attracting the next unbalanced teenager looking for a nihilistic cause. The men who carry out these crimes are not holy warriors. They are ugly, emotionally stunted criminals. We need to remember that.

Dan Hannan is a British Conservative MEP.

See the original post:
The real danger to democracy - Washington Examiner

It would be easy to become despondent in the face of the relentless attack on the media and on facts that confront us these days. But there is reason to be hopeful.

McKenzie Murray, a senior at Olympia High School in Olympia, Washington, explained why, despite the troubling patterns she sees, shes optimistic about the future. Her essay detailing her perspective which won the Washington Consortium for the Liberal Arts 2017 High School Liberal Arts Essay Contest makes it clear that she understands the nature of the problems were facing.

Politically, were in the midst of some of the most divisive times my generation has ever seen. And as discourse surrounding policy devolves, and people realize that they can capitalize on confusion and fear, a completely new challenge has suddenly been added to our high school experience--the proliferation of fake news on our social media feeds.

She also understands the consequences of the problem. Our democracy cant function without trust between the citizens, our policymakers, and the writers that keep us in touch with one another. Undermining the media is a tactic to silence civilian dissent and cover up gross ethical violations by some of the most powerful people in our nation.

Why, then, is she optimistic? Simply put, she sees a solution to the virulence that is putting some of our most cherished social values at risk.

The antidote to this silencing is a liberal education--an education that spans disciplines and emphasizes critical thinking. The liberal arts give us a voice, and a framework for understanding and discussing our world. Literature and philosophy allow us to look at the idea of a post-truth society and call it what it is--Orwellian, and a violation of our most basic civil liberties. Social studies allow us to look at when this has happened before, and what people did about it. Studying English and language fosters the kind of reasoning and judgment skills that we need to stay informed citizens. Mathematics and the sciences assist us in critical thinking, and seeing the logical underpinnings beneath hazy rhetoric and false claims.

McKenzie recognizes the power the liberal arts has to shape the qualities needed for students to become active citizens. She appreciates the fact that no one discipline or approach is enough to solve our most pressing problems. And as she notes, a broadly based liberal education, can create important habits of thinking: It fosters a kind of vital curiositya desire to understand life and humanity and to constantly keep learning.

She is confident that her generation will embrace this sort of education and that by doing so members of her cohort will learn the kind of critical thinking, truth-seeking, and commitment to respect and unity that we will need to practice throughout our entire lives.

I find McKenzies optimism to be contagious. If high school students like her are able to clearly define some of our most troubling problems and to recognize the type of education needed to craft solutions, there is good reason to be hopeful. Perhaps this next generation will be less divisive and more skeptical, more willing to recognize the difference between opinions and facts, than the current one. If so, they will likely create a more rational and more just world while supporting the full stretch of human knowledge from the sciences to the arts.

Start your workday the right way with the news that matters most.

Continue reading here:
Democracy and the Liberal Arts: A Student's Perspective - Huffington Post