• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

When Did America Haters Barack Obama and Bill Ayers First Meet?

So When Exactly Did Bill Ayers and Barack Obama Meet?

by Jack Cashill   at American Thinker:

“In his massive new biography about Barack Obama’s pre-presidential years, Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, Pulitzer Prize-winner David Garrow makes hash out of the lie that preserved Obama’s candidacy in 2008.  That said, he pulls back from the implications of his own revelations to protect what remains of Obama’s literary reputation.

In the way of background, during an April 2008 presidential primary debate on ABC, George Stephanopoulos said about Bill Ayers and pals, “They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings.  He’s never apologized for that.”  He then asked Obama, “Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?”

“This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” said Obama dismissively of Ayers.  “He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from [sic] on a regular basis.”

The question fueled what the L.A. Times called a “storm of criticism.”  The rage was directed not at Obama for his dissembling, but at Stephanopoulos for his effrontery.  How dare he ask Obama about an “obscure sixties radical”? asked Michael Grunwald of Time.  The media chose not to follow up.  If they had, Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination.

Garrow has come along nine years too late to do Clinton any good.  But after ten years researching this book and interviewing a thousand people, he reveals just how strong was the relationship between Ayers and Obama and how deep was the lie that protected it.  Unfortunately, there is an element of that lie Garrow himself insists on protecting.

Garrow sticks to the story that state senator Alice Palmer asked Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn to host a fundraiser for state Senate candidate Obama in the fall of 1995 – as if they needed to be asked.

Then Garrow begins adding information.  “After that gathering, Barack and Michelle began to see a great deal more of not only Bill and Bernardine but also their three closest friends, Rashid and Mona Khalidi and Carole Travis.”  Rashid Khalidi was a Palestinian native of radical bent then living in Chicago.

According to Garrow, Obama did the following during the next eight years.  He organized a panel on juvenile justice based on a new book by Ayers.  He served on the Woods Fund board with Ayers.  He joined Ayers for a panel discussion, “Intellectuals, Who Need Them.”  Up until the time of his 2004 Senate run, he and Michelle attended “the almost nightly dinners” held with Ayers, Dohrn, and the Khalidis.

Ayers obviously meant a whole lot more to Obama than “a guy who lives in the neighborhood” might be expected to.  But how much more?  Khalidi did not shy from giving credit where it was due.   He began the acknowledgment section of his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, with a tribute to his own literary muse: “First, chronologically and in other ways comes Bill Ayers.”  Khalidi had no reason to be coy about this relationship.  Obama obviously did.

Garrow obliges him.  Although he concedes that Ayers and Obama both dated the same woman, Genevieve Cook, in New York City in 1984, he does not try to connect the dots.  Nor does Garrow try to connect dots when Ayers follows Obama to Chicago and both work on educational reform with the same people during the years 1987-1988.

No, Garrow specifically traces the first meeting of Ayers and Obama to a time in 1995 immediately after pre-publication galleys for Obama’s book Dreams from My Father arrived in Chicago – in other words, too late for Ayers to have helped at all with the book’s writing.  This is way too convenient.

For all his research, Garrow refuses to ask what Bill Ayers saw in Obama.  The answer may well be found in a 1994 essay that Ayers co-authored, whose title befits a former merchant seaman: “Navigating a restless sea: The continuing struggle to achieve a decent education for African American youngsters in Chicago.”

In “Navigating,” Ayers and his nominal co-author, former New Communist Movement leader Michael Klonsky, offer a detailed analysis of the Chicago school system and a discussion of potential reforms.

Garrow cites “Navigating” twice but chooses not to see the obvious – namely, that Obama offers a nearly identical analysis in Dreams.  This analysis was completed in the same year, 1994, as “Navigating.”  The particular value Obama brought to the relationship can be found not in the many points on which Ayers and the Obama of Dreams agree, but rather on the one point on which they at least seem to differ.

First, the areas of agreement.  Dreams tells us that Chicago’s schools “remained in a state of perpetual crisis.”  In “Navigating,” the situation is described as a “perpetual state of conflict, paralysis, and stagnation.”

Dreams describes a “bloated bureaucracy” as one source of the problem and “a teachers’ union that went out on strike at least once every two years” as another.  “Navigating” affirms that the “bureaucracy has grown steadily in the past decade” and confirms Dreams‘ math, citing a “ninth walkout in 18 years.”

“Self-interest” is at the heart of the bureaucratic mess described in Dreams.  “Navigating” clarifies that “survivalist bureaucracies” struggle for power “to protect their narrow, self-interested positions against any common, public purpose.”

In Dreams, educators “defend the status quo” and blame problems on “impossible” children and their “bad parents.”  In “Navigating,” an educator serves as “apologist for the status quo” and “place[s] the blame for school failure on children and families.”

Another challenge cited in Dreams is “an indifferent state legislature.”  Ayers cites an “unwillingness on [the legislature’s] part to adequately fund Chicago schools.”

In Dreams, “school reform” is the only solution Obama envisions.  In “Navigating,” Ayers has no greater passion than “reforming Chicago’s schools.”  In fact, in that same year this article was written, 1994, the ambitious Ayers co-authored the proposal that would win for Chicago a $49.2-million Annenberg Challenge grant.  Obama would later be made its chair.

In Dreams, the thoughts on educational reform are channeled through the soulful voice of two older black Americans.  The first, Moran, a composite, tells Obama, “The public school system is not about educating black children.  Never has been.  Inner-city schools are about social control.  Period.”

“Social control” is an Ayers obsession.  “The message to Black people was that at any moment and for any reason whatsoever your life or the lives of your loved ones could be randomly snuffed out,” he writes in his memoir, Fugitive Days.  “The intention was social control through random intimidation and unpredictable violence.”

In Dreams, Moran elaborates on the fate of the black student: “From day one, what’s he learning about? Someone else’s history. Someone else’s culture. Not only that, this culture he’s supposed to learn is the same culture that’s systematically rejected him, denied his humanity.”

Precociously Afrocentric, Ayers has been making the same case since he first got involved in education.  “The public schools’ idea of integration is racist,” he said early in his career.  “They put Negro children into school and demand that they give up their Negro culture. Negro children are forced to speak, behave, and react according to middle-class standards.”

The second of Obama’s educational mentors is “Frank,” Obama’s mentor in Hawaii, the Communist Frank Marshall Davis.  Frank tells the college-bound Obama, “You’re not going to college to get educated. You’re going there to get trained. They’ll train you to forget what it is that you already know.”

Ayers makes the identical distinction in his 1993 book To Teach.  “Education is for self-activating explorers of life, for those who would challenge fate, for doers and activists, for citizens. Training is for slaves, for loyal subjects, for tractable employees, for willing consumers, for obedient soldiers.”

By 1994, Ayers had been preaching educational reform for nearly thirty years, but one major force still intimidated him: Chicago’s sluggish and self-interested educational bureaucracy.  Over the years, this bureaucracy had morphed, as Ayers notes in “Navigating,” from being a bastion of “[w]hite political patronage and racism” to being “a source of Black professional jobs, contracts, and, yes, patronage.”  For reasons both ideological and practical, Ayers wilted in the face of this bureaucracy.

On this racially tender issue, not so strangely, Dreams tells a different story.  Obama openly chides the black “teachers, principals, and district superintendents,” who “knew too much” to send their own children to public school.

“The biggest source of resistance was rarely talked about,” Obama continues – namely, that these educators “would defend the status quo with the same skill and vigor as their white counterparts of two decades before.”

As to the claims of these educators, affirmed in “Navigating,” that “cutbacks in the bureaucracy were part of a white effort to wrest back control,” the author of Dreams says, teasingly, “[N]ot so true.”

“Not so true”?  In these three words one can anticipate Obama’s potential return on Ayers’s investment.  Simply put, as a black American, Obama could address sensitive racial issues in ways Ayers could not.  Ayers surely recognized this.

To advance Obama’s career, it appears, Ayers finished up Dreams, got Obama appointed chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant, and launched his state Senate run, all in 1994-1995.

The political calculus behind that ambition helped shape Dreams.  This was a careful book written to jump-start the career of a deeply indebted and highly malleable Chicago politician, maybe even a mayor, one who saw the world through white eyes, as Ayers did, but one who could articulate the city’s real problems in words that Ayers could not.

This would have worked out much better for Ayers if Obama had contented himself with Chicago.  As history records, he did not.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/so_when_exactly_did_bill_ayers_and_barack_obama_meet.html

The President Who Hated His America So Much, He Gave Irani Islamists the Nuclear “DEAL”

Barack Hussein Obama was a foreigner to America.   Little has been reviewed about his “American” background.   His father had multiple wives;  a  Muslim, but didn’t demonstrate much interest in family life.  Obama was raised by wealthy grandparents.

College Obama was  Marxist oriented.    His records are under lock and key so no one can review them.  Many of his prof mentors were communists….the fascist kind.

His hero in American life was Communist Socialist Saul Alinsky a community organizer programmed to make the country red during the 1930s.

Barack Hussein received a law degree and followed his hero, Alinsky, into the Communist Socialist community organizer world.   He spent most of his American presidency making America weak, ignorant, and hating of those folks who declined to teach and sing songs of Praise and Love to Comrade Obama in elementary schools, K -12 the first two years of his stay in office.

He destroyed the American economy……… and the once honorable Democrat Party, turning it from American Liberal to Soviet style Communist Socialist Fascist world of intolerance, deceit, and betrayal.

At the end of his presidency, Islamic sympathizer Barack Hussein Obama gave  Iran and its screwball ayatollah fascists who run the country a secret deal;  billions of American tax payer money  to assure these hate-America Iranis  had sufficient nuclear capabilities to  spread its brand of Islam to the rest of the world without resistance.   No doubt songs of Jihadists will be sung by Islamic fascists everywhere forever  saluting Islamist leader, Barack Hussein Obama for his leadership in destroying America in the name of Allah.      Please read the following Federalist article by  for further information:

Obama’s Iran Deal Was Much Worse Than We Suspected

….

Barack Obama didn’t just undermine our allies with the Iran deal—he undermined his own Justice Department
by David Harsanyi   at  the Federalist:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/24/barack-obamas-iran-deal-was-much-worse-than-we-suspected/

Dear Crooked Hillary…..Please Disappear!

Dems, Tell Hillary to Go Back to the Woods

 by A.B. Stoddard  at realclearpolitics:

“Before Hillary Clinton puts more miles on her comeback tour, Democrats should let her know she’s done enough damage and it’s time to pack it in. That won’t stop her, since even after losing to Donald Trump she fancies herself some misunderstood martyr, but it might slow her down a bit.

While they crawl out of the wilderness that both Clinton and President Obama left them in, any moments Democrats spend amusing their failed 2016 nominee as she tries to find a way back to some sort of relevance is more than wasted energy — it’s self-sabotage.

Last week Clinton sat in sanguine reflection at a carefully timed interview at a Women in the World Summit event and blamed everyone but herself for her staggering loss five months ago. After telling New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof that personally she’s just fine, but that “as an American, I’m pretty worried,” she listed the causes for her loss: WikiLeaks, for publishing real emails about her campaign; Russia, for interfering in the campaign; FBI Director James Comey; and misogyny. When asked about future office, she did not rule it out, repeating that she wants to do “interesting things” and has “no plans” to ever run again. It was, well, Clintonian in its predictability.

Days after her remarks, a devastating tell-all was published that renders the same conclusion — no matter how badly things go, it’s never on Hillary. In “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign,” a new, second book on Clinton by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, the toxic Clinton cloud returned, worse than ever before. The book portrays the distrust and dysfunction inside the bunker of a campaign where Clinton never took any blame, and aides were terrified to attempt to break through her denial with suggestions for any course corrections. Huma Abedin, the candidate’s closest aide, “couldn’t be counted on to relay constructive criticism to Hillary without pointing a finger at the critic,” the authors write………”   There’s more below.  Please read on.  Reading about Hillary always increases ones blood pressure:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/04/21/dems_tell_hillary_to_go_back_to_the_woods_133672.html#2


Schumer’s Fascist War Against Courageous American, Devin Nunes…..

Devin Nunes and Washington’s Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery inside an Enigma

by Victor Davis Hanson at National Review

“The beleaguered Intelligence Committee chairman is the latest target in a partisan smear campaign. He must not step down. Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) will not step down from the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee.

He is the new target in an already long line of those targeted by the media for forced resignations — Stephen Bannon, the purported anti-Semite; Sebastian Gorka, the alleged closet Nazi; Jeff Sessions, the supposed Russian patsy; and now Devin Nunes, the purported partisan naïf. Nor should he resign — especially given the wider and bewildering landscape of the politicization and corruption of the intelligence community over the last months and the dangerous state in which we all find ourselves vis-à-vis the intelligence agencies and the transition of presidential power…”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446302/devin-nunes-trump-surveillance-riddle-deepens-he-must-not-step-down

Dem Fake News Folks reported from realclearpolitics

Trump: ‘We Learned a Lot’ From Health Care Debacle

by Alexis Simendinger  at realclearpolitics:

Dear readers:  Lefty Alexis represents reporting from the fascistic wing of American politics these days, the  Democratic Party now led by Schumer, Pelosi, Franken, Blumenthal, and feminists of all sexes, colors, shapes and sizes A through Z demanding every American be made equal along with 20,000,000 leftist illegal invaders.

Read carefully each sentence and the in between printed below at rcp.  Which of them bear any Truth whatsoever?  That Donald J. Truth, now President, said “We learned a lot from the health care debacle”, I am guessing, is one, perhaps the only bit of Truth woven into the article.

But, was it a debacle?   Do you think for a moment Our Donald has given up on the matter?    Think of  the collapse of ObamaCare, both in exercise and in finance, as a piece of property in the free market, property not cherished in particular because of its own value, but vital to own for its location.

In a fascist state,  the one cherished today by the feminists, black racists,  the invading Hispanics and the  homespun   Jewish habitual  Left, all   now controlling the  American university and school,  whose every vote local or national,  legal or illegal,  Democrats need to fulfill their single-Party dictatorship already achieved in  California, controlling the language is essential in building a united, obedient, uneducated  population mass dependent upon the State, for voting fodder.

Read carefully the following article typical of most things written for rcp readings.    What is cherished?   What is really True?  Who are the winners and losers.  Where is the proof?

Was the GOP withdrawal  of the Paul Ryan ObamaCare replacement bill a disaster or mere propaganda?  for whom?  Pick out the sentences, the put downs, are they true?  ObamaCare is the health plan leftist Democrats worship.   Do you think for a moment Our Donald Trump won’t campaign to remind the world of its cancers and who arranged them as health care?

Today’s American press coverage of the Trump administration thus far is written  by SINGLE PARTY PREY…..that is, these propagandists are products of the leftist gangs running Journalism Departments and school from American coast to American coast.

Leading fascist of my younger days of life was stilted, snooty, boring, pompous, arrogant, single party leftist, Ted Koppel, at ABC of the then less dishonorable Democratic Party in America .  I was a Democrat then.  He was reliably repelling as an pompous ass, and  I suspect he still is.   Yet, I feel good from him for his shortcomings were so overwhelming,  he helped me discover Ronald Reagan.

American journalists are programmed to be mindless beyond their leftism.   Back in my radio years, I remember yawning listening to H.V. Kaltenborn, the Republican clone of  that Ted but far more boring than arrogant.   Besides, rainy evenings caused static on radio during the War years.  One couldn’t tell the difference between the static and H.V.’s tones from speech, perhaps a reason why so many folks were Democrats then.

Trump: ‘We Learned a Lot’ From Health Care Debacle

“Donald Trump campaigned to repeal and replace Obamacare in his first 100 days in the White House. He boasted of wielding a businessman’s negotiating skills alongside a determined GOP commitment to upend the old ways of Washington with conservative governance.

But on Friday, his 64th day as president, Trump swallowed his first legislative defeat, after House Republicans balked at passing a health care measure they came to view as flawed and too politically radioactive to embrace before next year’s midterm elections.

“I’m disappointed,” the president told reporters. “I’m a little surprised, to be honest with you. We really had it. It was pretty much there within grasp.”

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — signed by President Obama and a survivor of two Supreme Court decisions and more than five dozen GOP efforts to repeal it — remains the law of the land.

The public-private coverage system created in 2010, which benefits a minority of all Americans but touches all of the health care system, will eventually “explode,” Trump predicted. “It’s going to have a very bad year,” he told reporters in the Oval Office after he and House Speaker Paul Ryan opted to yank the doomed GOP replacement bill from the House floor.

Ryan chalked up his conference’s dramatic flameout to “the growing pains of governing.”

Trump, at least initially, blamed congressional Democrats for standing together against the Republicans’ repeal effort, forcing the GOP to pursue complicated legislative procedural steps that navigated around Democratic opposition, which one frustrated lawmaker compared to trying to shove a camel through a keyhole.

“I think the losers are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, because now they own Obamacare,” the president said.

(Trump never met with any Democratic lawmakers to seek their ideas before launching the repeal and replace endeavor after January.)

Obamacare, on its own, Trump continued, is teetering in some states in which private insurance policy choices in the federally subsidized marketplaces are evaporating. Premium prices have escalated, and deductibles soared, often rendering policy choices unaffordable for those who can’t access insurance through employers, are not seniors on Medicare, and for the working class whose incomes are too high to qualify for state-based Medicaid.

Asked if he sought to remedy some of those Obamacare problems in the interim (as his predecessor recommended he do during private conversations months ago), the former New York businessman said he was eager to put health care behind him and move to tax reform– another policy-heavy endeavor that in the past has required years, rather than months, of congressional labors.

Failing to enact health care legislation complicates Trump’s tax-cutting ambitions on several levels, White House officials conceded. To underwrite the revenue lost with potential tax cuts, the administration hoped to use savings achieved by repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Trump said he had long predicted that Obamacare would crater, and he boasted he would be proven correct.

“There’s not much you can do to help it,” the president said of the law, which his Department of Health and Human Services is charged with implementing. HHS could make limited alterations under its regulatory authority attached to the Affordable Care Act’s existing provisions, and Trump could work with lawmakers of both parties to craft new piecemeal legislation this year. But he made no specific commitments.

The president sought to save face, arguing he had done everything he could to pass legislation through the House, even if the patched-together product was not entirely to his liking by the end of the week. The demise of the bill presented an opportunity, he argued.

“Both parties can get together and do real health care; that’s the best thing,” the president said. “I think having bipartisan [legislation] would be a big, big improvement,” Trump added. “I think that this is going to end up being a very good thing.”

But in an afternoon phone conversation with the New York Times, the president sounded eager to abandon health care, rather than persist. “It’s enough already,” he said of the negotiations, which the White House noted had included meetings, visits, and telephone calls with more than 120 lawmakers just in the run-up to the anticipated vote this week.

Health care’s policy complexities, which the president never described to his audiences during his recent speeches and rallies, and internecine party politics swamped Trump from the moment he said the White House would have its own repeal and replacement plan. In a hurry, he switched gears early this month and celebrated the Ryan-crafted bill as “the plan,” after the speaker posted it online on a Monday night.

Trump’s labors to overhaul the Affordable Care Act lasted just three weeks. Obama’s efforts, which included both parties before every Republican voted against it, took 18 months.

Health care has been a graveyard for political ambitions for decades. The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, later repealed, was a political disaster in 1988 and 1989 that provoked irate elderly constituents to blast President Reagan and chase former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski through an Illinois parking lot while television cameras captured every frame. The Clintons failed to get their secretly constructed universal coverage plan to a vote in 1994, and Hillary Clinton’s opponents used it as a weapon against her in 2008 and 2016.

Mitt Romney pioneered what became a model for Obamacare in Massachusetts as governor, and later turned his back on his own plan as a presidential candidate in 2012. Obama and Democrats initially exulted in 2010 that they would run and win elections on the ACA benefits. Seven years later, the law expanded coverage to an estimated 20 million Americans, reduced the ranks of the uninsured, and “bent the cost curve” of rising health care costs — but it also cost Democrats dearly in four straight election cycles because public opinion remains split.

Trump now has his own health care headstone. The failure Friday challenged everything he celebrated over half a century of brand building: the art of the deal, the dynamics of human behavior, and the ability to achieve a desired outcome on the basis of salesmanship and fears.

Trump said the lessons he drew from such a prominent flop were mixed. He had put two former House members in his Cabinet to navigate the shoals: Tom Price as HHS secretary and Mick Mulvaney as director of the Office of Management and Budget. Trump embraced Ryan’s bill. He instructed Congress that they must link repeal of the ACA to replacement, to occur together. And Trump championed a plan with House Republicans that was supposed to have three phases: the legislation that on Friday died in the House; deregulation accomplished through HHS; and separate health care-related measures that would have required 60 votes in the Senate later on (viewed as a fantasy because Democrats would not collaborate under those terms).

The president also understood that the bill he hoped the House would pass would never clear the Senate, complicating the political stakes for House Republicans who chafed at the more moderate instincts presented by their colleagues in the upper chamber.

While the president met privately with scores of lawmakers, interest groups and stakeholders, he promised Americans a “big, beautiful negotiation,” but offered no details of what Washington was cooking up. It became clear that Trump’s campaign vows that Americans would not lose their coverage, and that an Obamacare replacement would offer higher quality care at lower costs, had changed. During March, the White House softened Trump’s boasts: the new spin became consumer “choice” and “access” to health insurance.

Trump’s job approval poll numbers dipped below 40 percent in several surveys conducted in March, and the president began openly telling the public that he was anxious to move on to tax reform, which he viewed as more fruitful and less politically painful.

It was Ryan who arrived at the White House at midday to tell Trump the House GOP conference did not have 216 votes to pass the measure. Trump later praised the speaker and declined to blame him for the party’s explosive failure. Ryan talked with the president, whose instincts are usually to roll the dice, about whether lawmakers should be compelled to go on the record with their votes Friday afternoon, even if the bill went down. Ryan recommended against that drama, and the president agreed the bill should be pulled from the floor.

“It certainly was an interesting period of time,” Trump said a few hours later. “We all learned a lot. We learned a lot about loyalty. We learned a lot about the vote-getting process. We learned a lot about some very arcane rules in obviously both the Senate and in the House. … Certainly, for me, it’s been a very interesting experience.”

Alexis Simendinger covers the White House for RealClearPolitics. She can be

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/03/25/trump_we_learned_a_lot_from_health_care_debacle_133435.html#2

PRAGER UNIVERSITY: IF THERE IS NO GOD, MURDER ISN’T WRONG!!

(WITHOUT GOOD, THERE IS NO BAD!   ONLY THINKING MAKES IT SO!)
                                                      . . . . .
“Is murder wrong? How do you know? In this week’s video, Dennis Prager shows why, unless there is a God who says murder is wrong, believing murder is immoral is, well, just an opinion. And what happens when entire societies stop believing in God? As Dennis explains, the 20th century provides some tragic answers.
Presented by

DENNIS PRAGER

If there is no God, murder isn’t wrong. You may think it’s wrong, but how do you know it’s wrong? As Dennis Prager explains, without God, all morality is mere opinion.

Please click below to be refreshed regarding the obvious our today’s   American Leftists  refuse to know.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy/if-there-no-god-murder-isnt-wrong