Killing You Ideologically

Guy Benson: As we mentioned in a previous post, a popular talking point against Republicans’ (rather modest) Obamacare replacement effort is that it would result in thousands of deaths.  It’s a tax cut paid for with “blood money,” fumes racial-hoax propagator Elizabeth Warren.  It’s “evil” sneers incurable demagogue Chris Murphy.  The GOP is setting itself up to be the “death party,” scolds twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.  A number of these arguments are traced back to the bill’s “mean” cuts to Medicaid, a government program originally designated to serve America’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens.  Medicaid was failing on the merits before Obamacare expanded it to include millions of new people, many of them able-bodied childless adults living well above the poverty line.  And thus, new strains were placed on a hugely expensive program already suffering from poor health outcomes and constraints on access to care.  Here are a few succinct expositions of the compounded unfairness of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, via Yuval Levin and the Wall Street Journal editorial board, both of whom I quoted earlier:

Today, people newly covered by Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion (who tend to be childless adults with relatively higher incomes than the non-expansion population) are funded by the federal government on much better terms than the traditional Medicaid population (which tends to include more women with children and people with even lower incomes)…the Senate bill would gradually equalize funding for the two groups, effectively shifting Medicaid’s focus back to the most vulnerable of its beneficiaries. In states that respond to that by pulling back the expansion—and for states that have not pursued an expansion—the fact that the [GOP bill’s tax credits] now [go] all the way down [to the bottom of the income scale] means the Senate bill would provide an income and age-based subsidy that would allow these lowest-income individuals to afford at least modest insurance coverage in the individual market.

I love the ads fearmongering about “double digit increases”. Well, here in AZ, the ObamaCare increase (from what’s left of providers) was going to be TRIPLE DIGITS. So Obamacare must be better, right?
The Journal:

The budget will never balance, and debt will continue to accumulate, if Congress can’t modernize entitlements…Liberals call block grants heartless, but ObamaCare increased Medicaid enrollment by 29% to 74.5 million Americans—one of four citizens—in a program originally meant for poor women and the disabled. Equalizing payments for these traditional beneficiaries and ObamaCare’s new able-bodied adult enrollees above the poverty line is uncaring only in liberal caricature. The real scandal is Medicaid’s poor health outcomes and a funding formula that doesn’t encourage states to prioritize the neediest Americans.

As For CBO Scores, Garbage In, Garbage Out. Remember, they showed ObamaCare Favorably, until then didn’t after it passed. So I Take their “analysis” with a grain of salt.
Republicans’ plan would make Medicaid fiscally sustainable, and gradually revert back to a model that prioritizes help to the poorest people, who need the most help.  It’s perverse that the federal government provides a more generous funding formula for Medicaid’s better-off, better-situated expansion enrollees than the original, neediest population for whom Medicaid was supposedly created in the first place.  And while the GOP proposal would reform the structure of the program by offering a capped per-capita annual allowance to each state (which would foster restraint, prioritization, innovation, and creativity), the notion that it makes drastic “cuts” to the overall program is deeply misleading.

But that’s the Democrats fortay. Lying is second nature to them.

 Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, frustrated by these word games, has been teeing off on this point:

This funding increase of tens of billions of dollars is nevertheless cast as a “cut” because it would spend less than Obamacare would.  

And spending less than a Democrat would is always a “cut”. Remember when a 2 percent increase was a cut because it was less than they wanted?
Beyond this point, a raft of data indicates that in the aggregate (obviously, this does not apply to all individual cases), Obamacare has not saved American lives.  In fact, life expectancy has dropped for the first time in decades under the law, with particularly bad news in Obamacare Medicaid expansion states:

Public-health data from the Centers for Disease Control confirm what one might expect from a health-care reform that expanded Medicaid coverage for adults: no improvement. In fact, things have gotten worse. Age-adjusted death rates in the U.S. have consistently declined for decades, but in 2015 — unlike in 19 of the previous 20 years — they increased. For the first time since 1993, life expectancy fell. Had mortality continued to decline during ACA implementation in 2014 and 2015 at the same rate as during the 2000–13 period, 80,000 fewer Americans would have died in 2015 alone. Of course, correlation between ACA implementation and increased mortality does not prove causation. Researchers hypothesize that increases in obesity, diabetes, and substance abuse may be responsible. But thanks to the roughly half of states that refused the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, a good control group exists. Surely the states that expanded Medicaid should at least perform better in this environment of rising mortality? Nope. Mortality in 2015 rose more than 50 percent faster in the 26 states (and Washington, D.C.) that expanded Medicaid during 2014 than in the 24 states that did not.

If conservatives were inclined to traffic in the same brand of ugly, motive-impugning hysteria that many liberals have embraced on healthcare, they could throw nuance and causation arguments to the wind and simply shriek that Obamacare killed 80,000 Americans in 2015.  And that politicians who expanded Medicaid have even more blood on their heartless, cruel, murderous hands.  By the way, is there evidence that Obamacare actually has had a causal effect on increased death rates?  A look at opioid abuse and overdose-related death statistics suggests that yes, it is likely a contributing factor:

Read this entire thread, which provides in-depth data pointing to increases in insured rates (greatest in Medicaid expansion states), coinciding with a measurable, significant, commensurate uptick in drug overdose deaths.  As NBC News recently reported, insured people have easier access to pills and drugs — a fact that some terrible people have been capitalizing on by exploiting loopholes in well-meaning government programs to “rehabilitate” drug abusers.  Looking at the information linked above, one could make a simplistic, accurate, and unfair argument that Obamacare is killing people, and that Obamacare boosters are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.  This is how the Left is currently demonizing Republicans.  The more serious assessment would be to say that in a genuine attempt to mitigate problems X, Y and Z, Obamacare backers inadvertently opened a can of worms, leading to an explosion in problems A, B and C.  The truth is that laws require trade-offs and can generate unforeseen consequences — and healthcare represents an uniquely large, complex policy challenge.   If only liberals would acknowledge these applicable dynamics when reviewing the GOP’s Obamacare replacement proposals.

But as long as the debate over addressing Democrats’ failing healthcare experiment has degenerated into “you’re selfish, uncaring, blood-stained killers!” shouting, liberals should know that two can play that nasty and counter-productive game, if necessary.

It’s not like Democrats have anything else in the playbook except hyperbolic fear mongering and Orwellian/Alinsky Lying.
 And under their own standards, their hands are dripping with the blood of 80,000 innocent Obamacare victims, or whatever.  A less demagogic and entirely accurate approach would involve reminding Americans that Democrats lied to them incessantly while passing a healthcare scheme that is collapsing, harming millions, and getting worse.  And that their so-called “solutions” entail ever more government, ever more spending — and worse.  I’ll leave you with this development, which should not come as a surprise.
They lied to get Obamacare passed. They will lie to keep it. Very predictable.
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Complicity & Diversity

“All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability.”— Now Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

This has to do with Cake. Yes, A Cake.

As has been mentioned many times in this blog, the Gay Mafia Vs. Religious Liberty.

The Supreme has taken up the Case of a Colorado Baker who refused a Gay Marriage Cake Order. The courts, mostly liberal, have ruled in the gay couples favor. But now with Gorsuch (and possibly another conservative to come) the LGBTQ+ Mafia on speed dial is worried that religious people and people of conscience might actually have rights too.

OH NO!  Discrimination!! OH NO!

Tell that to the white people who get discriminated against by the SJWs quite regularly.

I liked the recent article in a feminist magazine that said the solution to White supremacy was White Abortions…Yeah, that’s not the slightest bit racist… 🙂

Or the self-segregating SJWs who don’t want the “Not We” anywhere near them.

Like Jews at a Gay Pride Parade.

So you have to be right kind of SJW to considered a proper one.
So much for Inclusion and Diversity…
The Chicago Dyke March is billed as an “anti-racist, anti-violent, volunteer-led, grassroots mobilization and celebration of dyke, queer, bisexual, and transgender resilience,” according to its Twitter account.
But if you’re a Jew or Pro-Israel then, f*ck off…
…the rainbow flag with the Star of David in the middle “made people feel unsafe,” and that the march was “pro-Palestinian” and “anti-Zionist.”
And these are the people that demand you make them more equal than others to make them equal and if you don’t do as they say they will get their lawyers on speed dial to destroy you.
Another participant asked to leave because of a Jewish flag was Eleanor Shoshany-Anderson. “The Dyke March is supposed to be intersectional. I don’t know why my identity is excluded from that. I felt that, as a Jew, I am not welcome here,” she told the Windy City Times.
Because you aren’t dear. The “tolerant” are very intolerant of anyone who is 100% pure in their orthodoxy.
That’s why they make good Daleks. 🙂
Rivka Poli ·

Well, I am representing Israel in the 2017 Chicago Pride Parade – on the MENSA float. Our slogan is: “Diversity is Smart.”
Cruz June Rodriguez ·

Madrid, Spain
Haha “diversity is smart,” yeah okay. Is diversity keeping Palestinians under military control, passing them through gates like cattle, having separate roads to drive on, and killing them off through military force?
Zionism has no place in our queer movement for liberation! Fuck pinkwashing and long live a free Palestine.
Now that’s your Tolerance, Diversity, and Inclusion Police at their best. 🙂

The ACLU, which is representing the couple, had hoped that the court would simply decline to hear it and let the Colorado decision stand. A ruling in favor of the baker could roll back years of progress made by LGBT civil rights groups in combating discrimination, allowing all sorts of businesses to close their doors to gays and lesbians simply by invoking a religious objection. Mullins and Craig released a statement after hearing the news that the court would indeed be hearing their case.

“This has always been about more than a cake,” Mullins said. “Businesses should not be allowed to violate the law and discriminate against us because of who we are and who we love.”

We have aright to destroy you in our Sanctimony. After all, you religious people piss us off and we want under our heel.

His husband, Craig, added, “While we’re disappointed that the courts continue debating the simple question of whether LGBT people deserve to be treated like everyone else, we hope that our case helps ensure that no one has to experience being turned away simply because of who they are.” (Mother Jones)

But equal is not what you want, dearie. You want to be superior. To be able to walk around and have everyone fear you. To do whatever you want, when you want and because you want and no one can say anything about it without being a discriminatory “hater”.

The hypocrisy that proclaims the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite who agree with their views only.

Not very Tolerant. Not very Diverse. And certainly not Inclusive.

Black Lives Matter (BLM), issued a series of demands calling for greater inclusivity in Toronto’s Pride Parade, one of North America’s largest celebrations of diversity. Most controversial of the demands: a ban on police-sponsored floats and booths in the annual Pride celebration.


All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others, Like liberals, especially Gay Liberals.

As long as you follow the orthodoxy that is…




Remember Tolerance and Diversity? Remember Civility and poisonous Partisanship?

The Democrats don’t.

But the Fear, bullying and Intimidation is all they know. So The Narrative is The Narrative.

So what if ObamaCare was a fucking disaster. So what if the RINOs want to keep it basically. It’s not THEIR plan.

CIVILITY: Democrat Leaders Now Calling Republicans “Murderers”

A Bernie supporter and lifelong leftist who was known to hate Republicans opened fire on congressional Republicans with the intentions of slaughtering as many as possible. Representative Steve Scalise is still in the hospital recovering from his gunshot wound.

You would think that responsible adults who are professional and mentally sane would try to express to their sheeple followers how important it is to have adult discussions rather than act out violently. Have Democrats done that? No, in fact they have done just the opposite. It’s as if they are egging on their followers to commit more acts of violence. It’s disgusting. From Ricochet:


Obviously, rhetoric didn’t pull the trigger on that Alexandria baseball practice last week, and we can’t hold liberal politicians and celebrities directly accountable for the actions of a violent, unbalanced man. Free speech in politics often tends toward the hyperbolic yet it is, and should remain, fully protected under the First Amendment. But after the shooting, many Democrats paused their efforts to undermine that right and called instead for civility on a voluntary basis.

To be honest, I’m surprised it (sort of) lasted a week.


The problem with these two nimrods is they represent the extreme left (even though they are both 1%ers that they often rail against) and their followers are indeed of the mentally unstable type. Twice over the past several weeks, Bernie supporters have tried to murder people, TWICE.

What the hell is wrong with these supposed leaders that they want to continue with their violent rhetoric? Not only are they LYING but they are INCITING others by claiming people could actually be killed or die if Republicans try to fix the disgusting mess that is Obamacare.

It’s repulsive to see how little Sanders and Warren and many other Democrats feel about regular Americans. It’s disgusting that these people continue to behave in ways that show how much vitriol, hatred and violent rhetoric they are about rather than actual ideas. They are out of ideas.

Because it’s the same OLD ideas. Fear, Fear, Fear, and More Fear…



Hyper Hyperbole.

Partisan Rhetoric so poisonous it would kill Medusa.

Nothing has changed. Same leopards. Same spots.

Violence was a moral boundary King refused any of his people to breach. He warned in 1958, “Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.”

But the modern Liberal Progressive Democrats has no boundaries they would not cross to get what THEY want. We’ve seen it before, we’re seeing it again.

The focus should not be  on winning or losing arguments on tough issues, and more on learning courageous dialogue skills that could be used to encourage understanding, foster critical thinking, and explore workable solutions that promote the common good.

The following civility conversation ground rules proved to be most helpful no matter what issue was discussed:

Don’t assume bad intent. Show empathy and tolerance for differences. Good people disagree. Well-intentioned patriots exist on both sides of any divide.

Stay Calm. When angry count to ten…very angry to a hundred. It’s better to end a conversation and take time to cool down than to let escalating anger destroy a valued relationship.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Ask good questions and then really listen. Say “Tell me more about…” and “Let me see if I understand…”

Make your argument without assuming you’re right or that the other should know why. Affirm points of agreement and common ground early while working to bring clarity to your position.


Do your homework and build depth to your convictions and your understanding of opposing views. (Townhall)

But the modern Liberal is intellectually incapable of this due an overabundance of brain-eating Narcissism. So the Fear & Smear is back with a vitriolic vengeance on this issue, because we all know it never left. It’s the perpetual guest pest that won’t leave.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

journalism 2017


Hodgkinson’s Disease

Derek Hunter

It was a different time, a crazy time, all those…days ago…way back at the end of last week. I remember it like it was, well, just last week, when Democrats suggested that maybe, just maybe, the political rhetoric in the country was a little too heated after one of their own tried to murder as many Republican Congressmen as possible. Like I said, it was a different time.

After less than two weeks, that time is done and the political left is back at their lying, hateful rhetoric about how Republicans are hoping to kill as many Americans as possible. It actually took a little longer than I thought it would.

Me too.

Putting aside the hypocrisy for a second, how dumb must Democrats think their base is to believe the other political party’s election strategy is to hasten the deaths of millions of people?

Very. They count on their mindless hoards who do and think as they are told.

How idiotic is the idea that one party’s plan to continue to win elections across the country is the screw as many people as possible out of something?

Fear is Fear. It’s what they do. It’s all they do.

Moreover, Democrats are telling their zombie army that the GOP’s “secret plan” is to take from the poor and give to the rich.

Well, they’ve been saying it for 50 years and the poor are getting poorer so it must be true, right? But when they are in power and it gets even worse the sheeple don’t notice because they are trained not it. Pavlov’s dog only salivates when you ring the bell. For Democrats that’s the “fear” bell.

Aside from the abject stupidity of it, what exactly would the rich take from the poor?

They are already rich, what more do they need, your broken down 1984 Chevy Suburban? I think not.

How, exactly, does one get rich by taking things from the poor? Do they have secret stashes of money they’re unaware of and rich people are sneaking into subsidized housing at night to empty the area under their couch cushions?

So that’s where that money goes….

Actually, there is a way to get incredibly rich off the poor – it’s by claiming to be their champion.

And make them feel “superior” at the same time you’re robbing them blind.

How many liberals have become fabulously wealthy by claiming to be “working for the poor”? They haven’t made a dent in the number of poor people -quite the contrary – but Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and countless other leftists have ensured their families won’t miss a meal for generations thanks, in large part, to their “championing of the poor.”

The poor are their meal ticket to riches.
Same as the “race” baiters use race to make themselves rich.

Quite a racket, when you think about it. And much more effective than robbing houses with no money.

Now back to the hypocrisy.

Before the blood on the baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia, has even had a change to evaporate, Democrats were back to using rhetoric that could have come directly from James Hodgkinson’s Facebook page. Actually, most of what Hodgkinson posted could have easily come from a Democrat Member of Congress’s press conference or any show on MSNBC, so it’s kind of a chicken and egg situation.

Whatever came first, Democrats made clear this week their appeals to their fringe were not going to end simply because one of their own took what they were saying literally and attempted mass murder. After all, they must think, what are the odds of lightning striking twice?

Or maybe they’re hoping it will…

Elizabeth Warren said the Republican health care plan introduced in the Senate this week was paid for with “blood money” and “people will die” because of it. If someone truly believes a political party is going to cause the deaths of countless innocent people it’d almost be irresponsible not to do whatever possible to stop them, including violence. Warren knows this, and the frequency with which she says similar things makes me think she’s counting on it.


You’d think someone would say something to Warren, tell her to pump the brakes a little – at least until the shooting victims get out of the hospital. But one of the people in a position to slow down Fauxcahontas is right there with her.

Chuck Schumer, leader of the Democrats in the Senate, doesn’t give a damn about anything but Democrats regaining power. In one of his speeches on the bill, Schumer took issue with the idea of slowing the rate of growth in Medicaid.

Remember the bill doesn’t cut anything in the way a normal person thinks of a cut – meaning spending less one year than you did the previous year. It spends more each year; just less than was previously projected. If you were expecting to win $100 at the casino and only won $50 you wouldn’t complain about how your winnings were cut.

In his lament, Schumer said, “Medicaid is increasingly a middle class program.” Medicaid was designed as the federal health insurance plan for the poor, meaning those who can’t afford to take care of themselves, not those who won’t. It’s welfare, and Democrats have spread the idea of this welfare to people who don’t need it to get them hooked on the idea of government taking care of them so they don’t have to.


Medicaid is failing and going broke. With more people on it and funding being finite, government controls costs by keeping what they pay doctors artificially low. More and more doctors each year are refusing to accept new Medicaid patients because, depending on the issue, they take a loss on them. That’s a direct result of this welfare program becoming “increasingly a middle class program.”

What that means is, under the banner of compassion (and in the name of winning votes for Democrats), Democrats are actually harming the people Medicaid was designed to help. They’d rather ensnare a family of 4 making $80,000 per year in a welfare program than actually help the poor.

It’s the tobacco industry model – get them hooked on the product, worry about the consequences later.


Bernie Sanders is no better, tweeting “Thousands of people will die if the Republican health care bill becomes law.”


Not to be outdone, even irrelevant Democrats were compelled to toss their gasoline on the flames.

Hillary Clinton tweeted, “Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill, they’re the party of death.”

Barack Obama was more subtle, but his Facebook rant was no different.

Last week a liberal activist took what he’d heard to heart and tried to save the country from the slaughter he’d been assured Republicans were set to unleash on the country.

What Hodgkinson did is easy to dismiss as part of a mental illness, just as it’s easy to dismiss a suicide bomber as insane. But they aren’t insane – they’re true believers. They’ve thought through their actions, aware of the consequences, and decided they had to act anyway. There’s too much thought in their actions to be chalked up to insanity.

And there’s too much inspiration for the Hodgkinsons of the world to think he’ll be the last.

These smug progressive preachers of hate may have won elections, but they have not won absolution. For absolution you must express regret and cease the offending action. While some Democrats did feign regret, though it didn’t last a week, none are showing any signs of a desire to stop their inflammatory rhetoric – there’s too much money and power is scaring the hell out of people. So is the only conclusion we can logically draw that they’re hoping someone else finishes the job?


I don’t relish that thought, but nothing else explains their words, their actions, and their lies.


The Fear Campaign Begins AGAIN

Mike Brzezinski: “…so much that he could control exactly what people think…and that is our job.” (MNBC)

The Senate Version of RINOCare may have it’s flaws. But that won’t stop the Sanctimonious Left and The Great and Grand Narcissist from fearmongering AGAIN and fiddle while ObamaCare Rome burns.

I know I get the fearmongering robocall every single day.

Remember when it was going to lower premiums by $2500? 🙂

As liberals flail away at the Senate’s newly-released healthcare bill, and conservatives scramble to adjust serious design flaws, Americans must not lose sight of an inescapable and crucial fact: The current law, which was exclusively written and passed by Democrats, is failing — and those failures are getting worse.  Within the past 48 hours, two major insurance carriers announced plans to withdraw from Obamacare marketplaces in a slew of states.  Despite hiking individual market federal exchange premiums by an average of 105 percent over the past four years, in a quixotic effort to compensate for Obamacare’s systemic adverse selection flaw, carriers are still losing hundreds of millions of dollars per state, per year.  For many, they can’t sustain those financial blows any further, so they’re pulling the ripcord:  

Anthem will pull out of the ObamaCare exchanges in Indiana and Wisconsin next year, the insurance giant announced Wednesday. obamacare1
These departures will only deepen the law’s spiraling rate and access shock problems. Liberals, ever eager to blame their failures on others, are trying to pin this slow-motion collapse on Republican “sabotage,” but that’s a nonsense excuse.  It’s true that uncertainty surrounding the future of the Obama administration’s illegal cost-sharing subsidies is adding to this turbulent business climate, as is the lack of clarity over the future of ‘repeal and replace.’  But the longterm trajectory — toxic risk pools leading to major cost spikes and insurer pullouts — long predates the Trump administration.  Indeed, this pattern was confirmed by Obama-era government data released just before the 2016 election.  The financial markets were fully expecting a Clinton victory, which would have guaranteed Obamacare’s endurance, yet the pullouts and soaring premiums continued in spite of that anticipated policy continuity.  Because Obamacare was and is the problem.  

Furthermore, the claim that Republican governors who “undermined” the law are at fault here is also bogus.  Those ‘red’ states that refused to establish their own Obamacare exchanges (several ‘blue’ states that tried doing so ended up crashing and burning) simply defaulted to the federal exchange, where massive rate increases are par for the course.  And perhaps the most Obamacare-friendly Republican governor in the country has been Ohio’s John Kasich, who still doggedly defends his (increasingly expensive) decision to expand Medicaid.  Remind me: How are Ohioans faring under the law, again?  Sticker shock has also battered solidly Democratic states like Minnesota, Maryland and Connecticut.  I repeat, the problem is not Republicans.  The problem is Obamacare.  Republicans now have a real opportunity to improve the ugly status quo in important ways, but the first draft of the Senate bill could conceivably make matters worse, for reasons I outlined yesterday.  The GOP is still absolutely right to keep beating the drum on how their opponents’ policies have made matters far worse for millions of people.  Here’s Majority Leader Mitch McConnell highlighting various stories of real people feeling the brunt of Obamacare’s shattered promises of affordability:

More Americans have been directly harmed by the current law than have been helped by it, putting the lie to the Left’s thoroughly-discredited “win/win” propaganda.  If GOP replacement efforts end up faltering, the nation will be stuck with an unsustainable and deteriorating individual insurance market, resulting in even more pain for families.  Credibility-crippled Democrats believe the “solution” to these issues is more government control and more spending.  Many are on the record in favor of a socialized, government-run healthcare system.  This isn’t merely a dreadful idea in terms of health policy and outcomes, it’s economically ruinous.  Don’t take my word for it; ask Democrats in Vermont and California, and the liberal editorial board of the Washington Post:

The government’s price tag would be astonishing. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) proposed a “Medicare for all” health plan in his presidential campaign, the nonpartisan Urban Institute figured that it would raise government spending by $32 trillion over 10 years, requiring a tax increase so huge that even the democratic socialist Mr. Sanders did not propose anything close to it…A single-payer health-care system would face all of these political barriers to cost-saving reform and more. To realize the single-payer dream of coverage for all and big savings, medical industry players, including doctors, would likely have to get paid less and patients would have to accept different standards of access and comfort. There is little evidence most Americans are willing to accept such tradeoffs.

A left-leaning think tank found that single-payer healthcare would cost US taxpayers an additional $3.2 trillion per year on average; the entire current federal budget is around $4 trillion — and we’re already running historically-large annual deficits, as the $20 trillion national debt balloons.  There is simply no way to pay for that type of eye-popping spending increase without truly gigantic tax increases on middle and working class families — all to pay for a worse system.  It’s a genuinely atrocious idea in nearly every way.  On another level, why should voters listen to one word on heath care policy from the party that exclusively created the mess we’re in, and that callously downplayed terrible, deadly corruption and abuses at the VA — America’s systemically flawed single-payer system that was designed to provide care to a small, discrete, sympathetic population venerated by both parties?  Alas, unwilling to own up to their calamitous failures, they’re screaming about the “mean” and “evil” GOP proposal that’s paid for with “blood money,” or whatever.  Incredibly, these same people believe their tactics are too kind, civil, and courteous.


The Ministry of Truth Study Part 2

If the children are the future, the future might be very ill-informed.

That’s one implication of a new study from Stanford researchers that evaluated students’ ability to assess information sources and described the results as “dismaying,” “bleak” and “[a] threat to democracy.”

As content creators and social media platforms grapple with the fake news crisis, the study highlights the other side of the equation: What it looks like when readers are duped.

The researchers at Stanford’s Graduate School of Education have spent more than a year evaluating how well students across the country can evaluate online sources of information.

Middle school, high school and college students in 12 states were asked to evaluate the information presented in tweets, comments and articles. More than 7,800 student responses were collected.

In exercise after exercise, the researchers were “shocked” — their word, not ours — by how many students failed to effectively evaluate the credibility of that information.

The students displayed a “stunning and dismaying consistency” in their responses, the researchers wrote, getting duped again and again. They weren’t looking for high-level analysis of data but just a “reasonable bar” of, for instance, telling fake accounts from real ones, activist groups from neutral sources and ads from articles.

“Many assume that because young people are fluent in social media they are equally savvy about what they find there,” the researchers wrote. “Our work shows the opposite.”

A professional appearance and polished “About” section could easily persuade students that a site was neutral and authoritative, the study found, and young people tended to credulously accept information as presented even without supporting evidence or citations.

The research was divided by age group and used 15 different assessments. Here’s a sample of some of the results:

Most middle school students can’t tell native ads from articles.

The researchers showed hundreds of middle schoolers a Slate home page that included a traditional ad and a “native ad” — a paid story branded as “sponsored content” — as well as Slate articles.

Most students could identify the traditional ad, but more than 80 percent of them believed that the “sponsored content” article was a real news story.

“Some students even mentioned that it was sponsored content but still believed that it was a news article,” the researchers wrote, suggesting the students don’t know what “sponsored content” means.

Most high school students accept photographs as presented, without verifying them.

The researchers showed high school students a photograph of strange-looking flowers, posted on the image hosting site Imgur by a user named “pleasegoogleShakerAamerpleasegoogleDavidKelly. The caption read “Fukushima Nuclear Flowers: Not much more to say, this is what happens when flowers get nuclear birth defects.”

Sam Wineburg, a professor of education and history at Stanford University and the lead author of the study, spoke to NPR on Tuesday.

“The photograph had no attribution. There was nothing that indicated that it was from anywhere,” he said. “We asked students, ‘Does this photograph provide proof that the kind of nuclear disaster caused these aberrations in nature?’ And we found that over 80 percent of the high school students that we gave this to had an extremely difficult time making that determination.

“They didn’t ask where it came from. They didn’t verify it. They simply accepted the picture as fact.”

Many high school students couldn’t tell a real and fake news source apart on Facebook.

One assessment presented two posts announcing Donald Trump’s candidacy for president — one from the actual Fox News account, with a blue checkmark indicating it was verified, and one from an account that looked like Fox News.

“Only a quarter of the students recognized and explained the significance of the blue checkmark, a Stanford press release noted. “And over 30 percent of students argued that the fake account was more trustworthy.”

Most college students didn’t suspect potential bias in a tweet from an activist group.

The researchers sent undergraduate students a link to a tweet by MoveOn about gun owners’ feelings on background checks, citing a survey by Public Policy Polling.

They asked students to evaluate the tweet and say why it might or might not be a good data source.

“Only a few students noted that the tweet was based on a poll conducted by a professional polling firm,” which might make it a good source, the researchers wrote.

At the same time, less than a third of students cited the political agenda of as a reason it might be a flawed source.

And more than half of the students didn’t even click on the link within the tweet before evaluating the usefulness of the data.

Most Stanford students couldn’t identify the difference between a mainstream and fringe source.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, which publishes the journal Pediatrics, has more than 65,000 members and has been around since 1930.

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) split from AAP in 2002, over objections to parenting by same-sex couples. ACPeds claims homosexuality is linked to pedophilia. It’s classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which estimates that ACPeds has about 200 members.

In an article in Education Week, Wineburg and his colleague Sarah McGrew explain that they directed Stanford undergrads to articles on both organizations’ sites. The students spent up to 10 minutes evaluating them, and were free to click links or Google anything they liked.

“More than half concluded that the article from the American College of Pediatricians … was ‘more reliable,’ ” the researchers wrote. “Even students who preferred the entry from the American Academy of Pediatrics never uncovered the differences between the two groups.”

You can see in-depth examples of some of the exercises — including sample responses — at the study’s executive summary.

The project began before the recent uproar over the prevalence of fake news online. But its relevance is immediately clear.

Wineburg told NPR on Tuesday that the study demonstrates that U.S. classrooms haven’t caught up to the way information is influencing kids daily.

“What we see is a rash of fake news going on that people pass on without thinking,” he said. “And we really can’t blame young people because we’ve never taught them to do otherwise.”

In fact, as Wineburg and McGrew wrote in Education Week, some schools have filters directing students to valid sources, which doesn’t give them practice learning to evaluate sources for themselves.

The solution, they write, is to teach students — or, really, all Internet users — to read like fact checkers.

That means not just reading “vertically,” on a single page or source, but looking for other sources — as well as not taking “About” pages as evidence of neutrality, and not assuming Google ranks results by reliability.

“The kinds of duties that used to be the responsibility of editors, of librarians now fall on the shoulders of anyone who uses a screen to become informed about the world,” Wineburg told NPR. “And so the response is not to take away these rights from ordinary citizens but to teach them how to thoughtfully engage in information seeking and evaluating in a cacophonous democracy.”

The Ministry of Truth Study Part 1

If the children are the future, the future might be very ill-informed.

That’s one implication of a new study from Stanford researchers that evaluated students’ ability to assess information sources and described the results as “dismaying,” “bleak” and “[a] threat to democracy.”

In exercise after exercise, the researchers were “shocked” — their word, not ours — by how many students failed to effectively evaluate the credibility of that information.

“Many assume that because young people are fluent in social media they are equally savvy about what they find there,” the researchers wrote. “Our work shows the opposite.” (NPR)

More on this article tomorrow. But I would say, since it’s liberal educaysion I would venture it’s quite deliberate.


For many millennials, it is impossible to imagine a day without turning on a phone or computer, accessing Twitter or Google News, and watching as floods of highlights appear on their screens. While many teens today consider themselves to be technologically advanced—skilled navigators in the sea of Internet content—this is often not the case.  
The digital media environment intensifies the presence of false information and enables poor critical judgement. A recent Stanford University study reveals harsh findings involving the ability of teens to determine fact from fiction. The implications of online “unreality” are numerous, and we should be demanding that the top tech users today focus more energy on how to become educated information consumers. 
The incomprehensibly large and varied domain of online information should be a progression in the pursuit of knowledge, truth and an all-around beneficial tool for youth. But, it is not that simple. The November 2016 Stanford study shows what researchers found when students from around the country were presented with online news and asked to critically evaluate it. The results are not only disturbing, but offer a clear glimpse into the unrealities the Internet perpetuates.  
The researchers “designed, piloted, and validated fifteen assessments, five each at middle school, high school, and college levels.” In one assessment, high school students were presented with a post from photo sharing website Imgur that included “a picture of daisies along with the claim that the flowers had ‘nuclear birth defects’ from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.”  
Results found that these students focused on the photograph and “relied on it to evaluate the trustworthiness of the post.” They did not note important details including the source of the photo. “Less than twenty percent of students … questioned the source of the post or the source of the photo.”  
College students were presented with a tweet from, the liberal advocacy organization, that claimed the NRA is out of touch with gun owners and their own members. The tweet also indicated “Public Policy Polling conducted the poll.”  
Results showed that only a few students noted that the poll was conducted by a professional polling firm and that this adds to its credibility. Also, “less than a third of students” thought that the clear political partisanship of the publisher — an open supporter of gun control measures — may have influenced the tweet. Overall, the students showed a shocking inability to assess information. The results suggest a growing need for incorporating civic online reasoning courses into school curricula. 
Future generations of media consumers will know the internet as their only source of information. Without an understanding of the dynamics of the Internet or the acquirement of debunking methods, future generations will become more tolerant of misinformation and more hostile to facts than ever before. New efforts must be geared toward fostering an awareness of the importance of distinguishing fact from fiction, in order to see millennials and all Internet users become educated, tech-savvy truth-seekers.  (
But the liberal educators for The Ministry don’t want and don’t teach critical thinking skills. They want them stupified.
Ignorance is Strength.