Megyn Kelly & Mike Huckabee Destroy Democrats’ Attacks on Dr. Ben Carson

I will just say it up front that I am not a fan of Megyn Kelly’s “journalism.” She hypes conflict and controversializes subjects and people to benefit herself. Conflict bias and hype is one of the biggest problems in journalism today.

That said, when Kelly gets it right this writer will say so.

The idea that Ben Carson isn’t capable of stepping into a new policy area such as HUD is preposterous on it’s face. Why?

Carson was a top military ROTC student leader, he is perhaps the most innovative brain surgeon in the history of the world, he started the famed Carson Scholars Fund which helps disadvantaged children get a quality education, Hollywood did a movie about his life, in a short time he became an expert on various political philosophies and can quote and debate the most noted political philosophers with anyone.  Carson has debated and lectured on economic policy, health care law, trade policy, foreign policy etc, all self taught.

Governor Huckabee rightly points out that Barack Obama had virtually no qualifying experience when he ran for president and those who pointed that out were called racists by the Democrats and their allies in the elite media.

Bill McMorris & Tucker Carlson destroy NYT over publishing fake news

All the news that’s fit to fake….

And indeed they were all on the same DNC talking points:

Here is the piece by Bill McMorris referred to in the interview with Tucker Carlson. This list needs to be everywhere.

Bill McMorris at the Washington Free Beacon:

The New York Times exposed the threat of fake news even before the election of Donald Trump two weeks ago, arguing that spreading faulty information is a threat to the Republic.

The paper highlighted alt-right conspiracy websites publishing outrageous lies masquerading as news in a piece headlined“Journalism’s Next Challenge: Overcoming the Threat of Fake News.” The Times interviewed journalists and “longtime critic of fake news” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) about how credulous Americans often fall for narratives that confirm their pre-existing biases without proper vetting from objective reporters.

“If you have a society where people can’t agree on basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?” asked one D.C. editor.

The answer could be found on social media. “Folks, subscribe to a paper. Democracy demands it,” one Times reporter wrote. Another added, “Or don’t. You’ll get what you pay for.”

Times readers had the inside scoop that the nation was witnessing “Hispanics Surge to Polls,” which would serve as the mortar in Hillary Clinton’s blue wall. The surge would not have been possible without the Clinton campaign, which was “Looking to Expand Lead With Hispanics” through Spanish-language ads and get-out-the-vote operations, as the Times reported on Oct. 2.

The New York Times‘ report on “dangerously fake news” ran alongside a report that “Hispanic America has been mobilized like never before in the 2016 election, and is emerging as a formidable force with the power to elect a president.”

“Energized by anger at Mr. Trump and an aggressive Democratic campaign to get them to the polls, Latinos are turning out in record numbers and could make the difference in the outcome in several highly contested states,” the Times reported.

The Times did not just rely on shoe leather but on hard facts so often missing from fake news sites. Without data, those susceptible to fake news can be led astray, such as the Pennsylvania voters who insisted Trump would win the state—a belief shared only by those trapped in a “bubble of such devoted [Trump] followers.” If Trump supporters ventured outside of their bubble, they would have known that “Trump Can’t Count on Those ‘Missing White Voters.’

Times subscribers were told that reports of a Latino surge were backed up by the data: “The Hispanic Voter Surge Was a Myth in 2012. But Not This Time.”

“The surge is real, and it’s big. It could be enough to overcome Mr. Trump’s strength among white working-class voters in the swing states of Florida and Nevada. If it does, it will almost certainly win her the election,” the Times reported.

Hispanics represented 11 percent of the electorate in 2016, the same as its 2012 share of the vote. Trump performed better with those voters than Mitt Romney did in 2012, according to exit polls. The election results were no better for the other groups that Times promised its readers would flock to Hillary and rebuke Trump: He won 8 percent of black voters, not the 4 percent that the Times saidhe would. Hillary also failed to garner the 20-point edge among women the Times suggested she would win, nabbing only 54 percent of the female vote.

The daunting poll numbers Trump faced led the Times to ask “Is This Election Over” on an Oct. 18 podcast, as Clinton’s chance of victory creeped up to 91 percent. The podcast came the same day the Times reported that the Clinton campaign aimed to turn a sure-fire victory into a blow-out with “its most ambitious push yet into traditionally right-leaning states.”

The GOP was in danger of losing statehouses across the country, while Clinton hoped a mandate and coattails would give Democrats control of the House and Senate. North Carolina was in play. So was Texas. Democrats were instructed “don’t gloat,” while reporters wondered how Republicans would address the “crucial and onerous decisions” to stonewall or negotiate with Clinton because “Mrs. Clinton is also viewed as someone capable of breaking the ice with congressional Republican leaders.”

With the race already decided, the Times turned its focus to the biggest storyline of the last two weeks of the election: Trump supporters rioting in the streets prompted by the billionaire’s insistence that the vote was rigged.

As Times correspondents worried that Trump would echo the rhetoric “of dictators who seize power by force and firebrand populists who weaken democracy for personal gain,” The paper reported that “Trump’s Threat to Reject Election Outcome Alarms Scholars. Trump’s campaign also had “Experts Thinking of ‘Tin-Pot Dictators.’” Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani’s FBI connections were “giving Joseph McCarthy a run for his money.”

No one felt the threat of Trump’s looming fascism as acutely as the news media.

“Partisan Crowds at Trump Rallies Menace and Frighten News Media,” the paper reported on Oct. 15. Two days later the tone went from menacing to “sinister,” as news organizations began “providing security for staff members covering Trump rallies.” A child reporter from Scholastic was alarmed by the dangerous chorus of boos directed at the press by Trump. Meanwhile, “Hair Force One” was notorious for bumpy landings, “an apt metaphor for Donald J. Trump’s entire presidential run: chaotic, turbulent and skittering just on the edge of disaster.”

Times readers were also exposed to the human sides of each candidate. They learned how Trump was giving pre-school classes the opportunity to dialogue about bullying and fat shaming and toxic masculinity.

They also learned of “Hillary Clinton’s strategic laughter” and why researchers want Americans to stop laughing at inappropriate and offensive comments. The Times campaign coverage peaked on Nov. 6, when a reporter observed that Clinton was exhibiting “an unfamiliar sense of abandon and joy.”

“She’s drenched now, her voice hoarse. The storm is mussing her hair. It’s time to leave the stage. But just before doing so, she turns and raises both arms, giving herself up to the storm and the moment—and the looming end of this adventure,” the Times reported.

On Oct. 2, the Times reported that the stock market would nosedive following a Trump win, making “a Trump victory … a bit worse than 9/11.”

Following Trump’s victory, the stock market enjoyed its best week since 2011.

The fake journalism that helped elect Donald Trump is now enemy number one for the fourth estate.

“The cure for fake journalism is an overwhelming dose of good journalism. And how well the news media gets through its post election hangover will have a lot to do with how the next chapter in the American political story is told,” one Times writer noted shortly before Trump’s massive victory.

 

Forbes: Obamacare Insurers Lost Billions “Financial Bloodbath”

The Congressional Budget Office CBO predicted that profits from ObamaCare’s top insurance companies would generate $8 Billion for the “Risk Corridor” – the pool of money to help insurers that lost money in the program. So how did the CBO do?

Forbes:

The new data shows that the amount insurers who made money in the individual market were required to contribute in 2015 was $89 million but the claims by losers against that money for that year amount to $5.3 billion. This is a ratio of about 60 to 1.  The figures for the small group market are even worse: profitable insurers contributed a paltry $6 million to Risk Corridors. Losers in the small group market are owed $594 million for 2015.

It is hard to overstate how bad the 2015 data is.  Here are some ways of assessing the magnitude of the financial bloodbath.

  • Although the individual market was considerably bigger in 2015 than it was in 2014, contributions to Risk Corridors were only about 1/4 as much in the individual market
  • There was one insurer in the individual market who made enough money in the exchanges that it could contribute over $10 million into Risk Corridors.  There were 105 insurers in the individual market who lost enough money in the exchanges that they are owed over $10 million.
  • There was one insurer in the small group market who made enough money in the exchanges that it could contribute over $1 million into Risk Corridors. There were 61 insurers in the small market who lost enough money in the exchanges that they are owed over $10 million.
  • There were 24 states in which not a single insurer made a contribution to Risk Corridors in the individual market.
  • There were 33 states in which not a single insurer made a contribution to Risk Corridors in the small group market.
  • There are nine insurers (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas”, “Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois”, “Blue Cross and Blue Shield of NC”, “Freelancers Health Service Corporation d/b/a Health Republic Insurance of New York”,  “BCBSM, INC.”, “Highmark Inc.”, “Health Net Life Insurance Company”, “Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma”, “Humana Employers Health Plan of Georgia, Inc.”, “Colorado Health Insurance Cooperative, Inc.”) that have each requested more than $100 million  in Risk Corridors money — more than all the contributions for 2015 put together.
  • Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas did so poorly it has requested $596 million in Risk Corridors money.  It likely won’t see a dime of it.  (This might explain why Blue Cross/Blue Shield requested a 58% rate increase for 2016).

 

Castro lived like a king; had 20 homes, mistresses, yacht, and a private island.

As this very writer said long ago there are four types of leftists. At the top of the food chain is the oligarch who is constantly virtue signalling the far left talking points, feeds the envy, the hate, and the divisiveness to the useful idiots and utopians, but to him it is all tools to an end. The left fawns all over this man and his murderous ways as they lack a moral center.

castro-in-the-lap-of-luxury

UK Daily Mail:

Fidel Castro the restless revolutionary had no time for pleasure, despising holidays as ‘bourgeois’ and claiming to live in a fisherman’s hut. His only luxury was the cigars that he continually chomped.

Or so he insisted to fellow Cubans who endured decades of abject poverty, crumbling housing and food rationing during his long rule. However, the reality — carefully kept from public consumption thanks to his iron grip on the media and public discourse — was very different.

A prodigious womaniser and food connoisseur who kept some 20 luxurious properties throughout the Caribbean — including a private island he used to visit on his beautiful yacht — Castro was a complete fraud.

The man who spent his life railing against the excesses of capitalism lived like a king — and a very debauched one at that.

However, when Forbes magazine listed Castro in 2006 as one of the world’s richest ‘kings, queens and dictators’, he angrily insisted he lived on a salary of £20 a month.

Read on and see the photo’s HERE.