EDUCATION Comments turned off

Student Launches Website for People Who Want to Mail Their Dead Bodies to the GOP to Protest AHCA If you care about people and their health, then you should avoid using apocalyptic alarmism to stonewall discussions about alternative ways to help them. By Katherine Timpf

Posted By on May 10th, 2017

An American University student has launched a website where people can sign up to have their ashes mailed to a Republican member of Congress as a way to protest the Republicans’ health-care bill.

Yes, seriously.

MailmetotheGOP.com, which was created by AU junior Zoey Jordan Salisbury last week, contains a simple “Send my ashes to the GOP” form with six questions: “First Name,” “Last Name,” “Email,” “Zip/Postal Code,” “Congressperson(s) to be mailed to,” and, finally, “Why will you die because of the Republican health care bill?”

“Will you die because of AHCA?” the homepage asks. “Let them know.”

According to an article in the Washington Post, the website already had hundreds of submissions as of Saturday. And although it isn’t clear how many of these people are actually intending to go through with sending their ashes to Republicans, Salisbury told the Post that she would be talking with estate planners and helping people who do want to go through with it to write their wills.

Now, I am certainly no fan of the Republicans’ health-care bill in its current form. After all, one reason that medical care has become so expensive is that it’s a market that’s almost entirely controlled by the government and big insurance companies, and this bill keeps it that way. What’s more, it could easily make some of the problems that have occurred under Obamacare even worse. For example: One reason that premiums have been rising under Obamacare is that the individual mandate has not done its job of convincing a large enough number of people to sign up. And the Republicans’ replacement for the mandate — allowing insurance companies to charge the people who have been out of the market more money if and when they do decide to re-enter it — is hardly going to solve this problem. It’s not rocket science: If you’re trying to convince people who have been out of the market to get into the market, charging those people more is not exactly the best way to convince them to do so.

But all legislation technicalities aside, the larger and more important point when it comes to people like Salisbury is that knee-jerk alarmist tactics against entitlement reform scare us away from finding the best solutions to problems — because it completely eliminates consideration of the solutions that come from the free market.

The idea that the only way people can get the things that they need is through the government is a false one.

As Ira Stoll explains in a article for Reason, the OMG-we’re-all-gonna-die attitude that we’re hearing from opponents of Obamacare repeal sounds a lot like the “warnings . . . against throwing poor mothers and children off welfare and into the streets” that we were hearing from opponents of Bill Clinton’s welfare reform in 1996. But what actually wound up happening? As Stoll notes, it was far from the gruesome carnage that the alarmists had predicted. Some of the welfare recipients started working, others turned to charities to receive the services that they had been receiving from the government, and “infant mortality, crime, and domestic violence all declined” — leading Stoll to conclude that “some mix of government and market-based solutions will no doubt similarly rise to meet the needs of those who had been receiving health insurance coverage via the Obamacare exchanges or Medicaid expansion.”

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The Euphoria over Macron’s Victory Ignores Reality The French election results suggest a high level of disaffection among voters. By John O’Sullivan

Posted By on May 10th, 2017

The outcome of yesterday’s French presidential election is easily explained. In the qualifying round two weeks ago, Emmanuel Macron defeated all the other non–Front National candidates in the competition to be least like Marine Le Pen. And because he was obviously much less like Marine Le Pen than Marine Le Pen herself in yesterday’s final round, he defeated her by roughly two to one.

Indeed, it is looking as if Le Pen underperformed even the low expectations of those who thought she would lose, getting only 34 percent when some observers expected her to break the 40 percent barrier. Michael Barone points out that she lost la France profonde as well as Paris to Macron, winning just two regions outright, and doing relatively well only in areas hit by recession or by high Muslim migration.

Though its size is remarkable, however, Le Pen’s defeat is the opposite of a surprise. It’s long been clear that most French voters would not support Le Pen or the National Front at any price. Earlier polls had shown that every other presidential candidate would defeat her in a run-off. The entire French establishment and all the other parties called for her to be crushed. And she suffered from the standard bias of the media and political elites that the most extravagant charges can be leveled against “right-wing” politicians with no need for evidence or penalty for error.

That said, there were surprises buried — and not far down — in the statistics. No fewer than 12 million voters cast “spoiled” ballots when confronted with these two candidates (some writing rude remarks on the ballot paper, I regret to tell you). If you count those abstentions as votes, they mean that though Macron won two-thirds of the Macron–Le Pen total, he won less than 50 percent of all who went to the polls either to vote or to protest. Other Macron supporters told pollsters they had voted against Le Pen rather than for Macron. And since turnout itself was slightly lower than usual in presidential elections, everything suggests a very high level of disaffection among French voters.

It contrasts oddly with the unqualified expressions of euphoria among European and national leaders welcoming a historic victory for France and Europe with “Ode to Joy” as their anthem. All that seems a little unreal. Indeed, before a single vote had been cast, observers such as Charlie Cooke and Christopher Caldwell pointed to the curious likelihood that a country moving right was about to elect a leftist president and that a nation angry with both the governing Socialists and the establishment was about to choose an énarque graduate of an establishment training ground who was in the Socialist government until yesterday to govern it.

Now it’s happened. So it inevitably seems less odd. But common sense suggests that some serious clashes are about to erupt between Macron’s ideas and political realities and between some of the different ideas wrestling inside for mastery of his mind. He is, for instance, a passionate Europhile who wants to relaunch the European Union. His commitment to the euro goes to the extent of wanting a fiscal government with a single finance minister for the eurozone that would then become a transfer union with “mutualization” of debts. Germany will like almost all of this because it promises to impose fiscal discipline upon otherwise unruly eurozone countries. But the Germans are determined to avert the threat of a transfer union with debt mutualization, which, as they see it, would amount to giving Greece and Italy the keys to the German treasury at the very moment that the U.K. will have opted out of subsidizing Europe in any way. Expect communiqués written in vanishing ink.

Macron is also talking up his intention to reform the over-regulated French economy and dash for prosperity. We’ve heard these plans before — in particular from Jacques Chirac (in his first presidency) and Nicolas Sarkozy. But they were very soon abandoned. They inevitably bump into obstacles such as the labor unions, the entrenched belief in the “French social model,” and not least the chains of an overvalued exchange rate, today’s euro, that makes French industry uncompetitive (and German industry highly competitive).

A restructuring of the euro (probably into a northern and southern one) would seem to be the practical solution to France’s and Europe’s problems here. But Macron is viscerally opposed to that particular reform, and so is Germany. Worse, if the euro were divided, France would probably be compelled by its sense of prestige to remain in the northern euro when its economic interests plainly indicate that it seek the relief and greater competitiveness of a southern euro. All in all, the prospects for Macron’s “pro-market” reforms — which explain why some conservatives and classical liberals support him — look distinctly gloomy. But it was Europhiliac French bureaucrats who designed the euro to be a house with no exits.

Macron must be considered an apprentice Man of Destiny—one facing difficulties as harsh and complex as those facing more experienced such figures as de Gaulle and Napoleon.

That brings us to perhaps the most fateful of Macron’s instincts on policy: his passionate multiculturalism, his post-nationalism, his hostility to “Islamophobia,” and his belief in a liberal migration policy or, in the jargon, “an open society.” He seems to believe in the limitless capacity of France to absorb more migrants and more cultures in a common multiculturalism even to the extreme of saying, “There is no such thing as French culture.” Yet France is at present divided bitterly between the native-born and migrants, facing another surge of lawless migration from the Mediterranean, and disturbed by near-constant acts of murder and terrorism. It is not yet in a state of civil war, but scores of automobiles are burned every night in the major cities, the spread of “no-go areas” continues steadily, and the imposition of Muslim rules on both Muslims and others living in these areas becomes increasingly oppressive. It is hard to see how all this can go right, especially if Macron’s economic reforms don’t produce the prosperity on which any social easement will depend.

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Obama’s Contradictory Climate Talk His Milan remarks offered nothing but vague hypotheticals at odds with one another. By Julie Kelly

Posted By on May 10th, 2017

Speaking in Milan on Tuesday at the Global Food Innovation Summit, Barack Obama — who was introduced as “the man that gave us hope, dreams and made us become better people” — told the crowd he forgot his tie. In a display of his post-presidency cool, he opted instead for a dress shirt unbuttoned to mid-chest. He appeared relaxed, sun-kissed, and, as always, supremely confident. You would too, if you were about to rake in a reported $3 million to give a speech and then have a chat with your former chef.

While the four-day event this week aims to “bring food and technology together,” Obama was there to talk about climate change. As the Trump administration seriously considers withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, the former president is ratcheting up the pressure for the U.S. to stay tethered to his signature international agreement.

In his opening remarks, Obama claimed that “for all the challenges we face, this is the one that will define the contours of this century more dramatically perhaps than any other.” He blamed climate change for everything from weather conditions in America (“where states are seeing floods on sunny days, where wildfire seasons are longer and more dangerous”) to the EU’s influx of migrants, which he claimed was caused not only by the conflict in Syria, but also by “food shortages that will get far worse as climate change continues.” (He later said the strain that climate refugees have put on the EU’s political system is “just the beginning.”)

That wouldn’t be the only humanitarian tragedy that Obama would attribute to man-made climate change during his appearance. He also blamed the phenomenon for making food production more difficult. “We’ve already seen shrinking yields and spiking food prices that in some cases are leading to political instability.” But for most of the world outside, say, Venezuela or North Korea, this is simply not the case. Yields continue to rise in every major crop. High food prices, scarcity, and hunger are almost always the result of failed government and economic systems, not the methane emissions of cows.

And yet Obama seemed unsure of his own message. For at the same time, he added, producing food is also a major cause of climate change: “Food production is the second-leading driver of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions . . . and if we don’t change course, the World Bank predicts that by 2050, agriculture and land use change may account for as much as 70 percent of global GHG emissions.” In short, we aren’t making enough food because of climate change . . . but making all this food is causing climate change.

Obama also seemed to contradict himself on the effectiveness of the Paris climate accord. Although he repeatedly defended it, he acknowledged that “even if every country somehow puts the brakes on the emissions that exist today, climate change would still have an impact on our world for years to come.” Then again, he said, “if we act boldly and swiftly . . . in favor of the air that our young people will breathe,” then “it won’t be too late.” Act boldly now so our kids can live their dreams . . . in a world that still has climate change.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The Bipartisan Case against James Comey The stated rationale for Comey’s firing was that he damaged the FBI’s credibility. By Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted By on May 10th, 2017

Jim Comey has been a good friend to me over the years. I have disagreed strenuously with a number of decisions he made in connection with the Hillary Clinton investigation — with his rationales and with the fact that he was presuming to exercise authority that was not his to exercise. The independence of law enforcement is critical, but at times he seemed to redefine “independent” as beholden to only those institutional guidelines he subjectively judged worthy of following. Still, I personally know him to be a good man. I know that he loves the country and the FBI, and that every decision he made — regardless of whether it was right or wrong — was made in what he sincerely believed was the best interests of both.

Last week, he testified that he was made “mildly nauseous” by the thought that his decisions had an impact on the outcome of the election. I know what he means: It describes how I’ve felt in criticizing someone I’ve been fond of since we started out as young prosecutors three decades ago — except I’d have omitted the “mildly.” The only solace I take in it is that I know Jim did what he understood his job required — and he knows he is not the only one who goes about things that way.

The memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to explain Comey’s dismissal Tuesday is well crafted and will make it very difficult for Democrats to attack President Trump’s decision. Rosenstein bases the decision not merely on Comey’s much discussed missteps in the Clinton e-mails investigation — viz., usurping the authority of the attorney general to close the case without prosecution; failing to avail himself of the normal procedures for raising concerns about Attorney General Lynch’s conflict of interest. He goes on specifically to rebuke Comey’s “gratuitous” release of “derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal prosecution.” That “subject,” of course, would be Mrs. Clinton.

This (as I noted in a recent column) is exactly the line of attack Democrats have adopted since Clinton lost the election: Conveniently forget how ecstatic they were over Comey’s confident public assessment that the case was not worth charging, and remember only his scathing public description of the evidence — even though both were improper. Significantly, Rosenstein avoids any suggestion that Comey was wrong in concluding Clinton should not be indicted; nor does he in any way imply that Comey’s errors made it impossible to bring a wrongdoer to justice. That is, Rosenstein leaves unstated the partisan Republican critique of Comey. Instead, Clinton is portrayed as a victim. This will appeal to Democrats — especially since it will keep alive the fiction that Comey, rather than Clinton herself, is responsible for the Democrats’ stunning electoral defeat.

Rosenstein leaves unstated the partisan Republican critique of Comey.

Moreover, Rosenstein makes a point of quoting condemnations of Comey by Democrats prominent in law enforcement: former Obama attorney general Eric Holder and Clinton deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick. Recall that Comey endorsed Holder for AG. This was an important seal of approval at a time when critics (like yours truly) were arguing that Holder’s key participation in the Marc Rich pardon scandal was disqualifying: Comey had not only been a respected deputy attorney general in a Republican administration; he had for a time inherited the Marc Rich investigation as a prosecutor in New York, when Rich was among the FBI’s most wanted fugitives. Yet, Holder has blasted Comey for breaking with “fundamental principles” of the Justice Department, and thus undermining “public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI” (in a way, I suppose, that Holder’s own citation for contempt of Congress did not).

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Sally Yates: Much Ado about Nothing New Democrats used yesterday’s subcommittee hearing to air a lot of partisan innuendo, but they couldn’t make anything substantive stick. By Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted By on May 10th, 2017

If ever there were an example of why a congressional committee is a terrible vehicle for investigating misconduct with alleged criminal or national-security implications, it was Monday’s Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing. The session, a probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, featured the much-anticipated testimony of Democratic diva Sally Yates, the former acting Attorney General fired for insubordination by President Trump in the early days of his administration. You’ll be shocked, I’m sure, to learn that the proceedings were heavy on politically charged innuendo and light on substance.

If you were looking for hard evidence of Trump collusion in a Russian influence operation, there was none to be found. And if you were hoping for insight into the only known crime to have been committed in this escapade — namely, the leaking of classified information to the media — the hearing chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) was a disappointment.

What we mainly heard was that the Obama administration really does not like Michael Flynn. Not exactly the late-breaking news.

President Obama fired Flynn after making him head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn was a naysayer on Obama’s foreign policy, particularly with respect to the Middle East — especially Iran and radical Islam. Flynn also made enemies throughout the so-called “community” of U.S. intelligence agencies because he called out our spooks on politicizing their analyses to paper over Obama’s policy failures. How surprising that many of these officials have no use for him either.

Thus, the schadenfreude runneth over in the Obama camp, which is clearly enjoying the general’s fall from grace. And one can hardly blame them for bursting into “I told you so” mode over lapses in judgment by President Trump’s original (and short-lived) national-security adviser — e.g., taking money in his post-military security-consulting career from enterprises tied to the murderous Putin regime and the government of Turkey’s Islamist thug, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Flynn defenders will get only so far observing that the autocratic Erdogan was beloved of the Obama and Bush administrations, too, and that the haul from Flynn’s Russian speaking gigs was a bare fraction of the cool $500,000 Bill Clinton got from a Kremlin-tied investment bank shortly before his wife, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton, signed off on a government ruling that gave Russia control of one-fifth of U.S. uranium supplies. I myself have pointed out that Flynn (with co-author Michael Ledeen) wrote a bestselling book, The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War against Radical Islam and Its Allies, in which he describes the Putin regime as a determined enemy bent on America’s destruction, and radical Islam as the ideology that animates the terrorist threat against our country. Given the general’s awareness of these facts, if he couldn’t perceive the unseemliness of profiting off the Russian and Turkish despots, then Democrats surely can’t be faulted for questioning his fitness, or Trump’s judgment in retaining him. Such critiques can hardly be dismissed as baseless, even if they are hypocritical, motivated by politics rather than security concerns, and grossly incomplete in the portrait they paint of Flynn’s distinguished military career.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Europe’s Death Wish: Edward Cline

Posted By on May 10th, 2017

“Nothing is creepier than Islam. Challenge Islamic racism, misogyny genocide, and so on.” I thought it would be just desserts to begin by paraphrasing Linda Sarsour and just turn back on her her statement that “Nothing is creepier than Zionism,” which has made the rounds on Twitter and national news. This groomed, but bag-headed, glib, taqiyya-fluent, BDS-champion, and stealth jihadist, has a loud mouth and is a publicity hound and resolutely anti-Trump. She was one of the organizers of the Women’s March in Washington. She has pulled lots of wool over the eyes of the liberal clueless.

But one prominent blogger and spokesman for the West, Bruce Bower, scratched his head and asked, following the dismally concluded French election of May 7th, in his PJMedia article, “What Happened in France?”:

How could Marine Le Pen have lost in a landslide?

Why, after the Brits chose Brexit, and Americans chose Trump, did the Dutch fail Wilders, and the French fail Le Pen?

How could a country that has been hit by several major terrorist attacks in recent years, and that has undergone a more profound social transformation owing to Islamic immigration, vote for business as usual?

… But if you’ve witnessed the reality of Islamization in cities like Rotterdam and Paris and Stockholm, you may well wonder: what, in heaven’s name, will it take for these people to save their own societies, their own freedoms, for their own children and grandchildren?

Bawer reviews the common rationale is that Europeans are still feeling guilty:

One way of trying to answer it is to look at countries one by one. For example, the Brits and French feel guilty about their imperial histories, and hence find it difficult to rein in the descendants of subject peoples. The Germans feel guilty about their Nazi past – and the Swedes feel guilty about cozying up to Nazis – and thus feel compelled to lay out the welcome mat for, well, just about anybody. The Dutch, similarly, are intensely aware that during the Nazi occupation they helped ship off a larger percentage of their Jews to the death camps than any other Western European country, and feel a deep need to atone.

Is it a matter of self-flagellation in the spirit of atonement? “Bible (Exodus 20:5-6; 34:6-7; Numbers 14:18) portray God as “visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children.” Still another part of the Bible (Jeremiah 31:29; Ezekiel 18:2; Job 21:19) rejects this and teach that “sons [shall not] be put to death for their fathers.” The Bible is rich in such bipolar maxims.

I do not subscribe to the moral philosophy of inherited guilt or generational responsibility. Most imperial history should not be apologized for, especially where and when it concerns “the descendants of subject peoples” not to mention the descendants of people who also weren’t even alive during imperial depredations. Some of that history if awful, particularly the Belgian experience in the Congo.

However, were it not for imperial colonial policies, much of the known world would still be in the very Dark Ages, “brutish, nasty, and short.” In fact, where the West retreated and left indigenous populations at the mercy of their murderous tribalist leaders and masters, those people have largely reverted to that condition. (Look at Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia.)The West introduced technology, medicine, literacy, law, longer longevity, higher standards of living, and even the concept of freedom. Much of that is now disappearing. Pick any country on the African continent and it’s the same story, with remaining Westerners under attack, their property confiscated, and explicitly threatened with mass murder and genocidal extinction.

Every time I read some Third World complaint about Western colonialism, I can’t help but hark back to that gem of a Monty Python scene in The Life of Brian, and think, “What has the West given the complainers?”

ISRAEL, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Dublin Council flies Palestinian flag over city hall in ‘gesture of solidarity’

Posted By on May 10th, 2017

Dublin City Council, in Ireland’s capital, has voted to fly the Palestinian flag over city hall until the end of the month “as a gesture of our solidarity with the people of Palestine.”

The motion, passed Monday, was proposed by left-wing People Before Profit Councillor John Lyons, who said the move would support communities living under a form of “apartheid, worse than South Africa.” It was carried with the support of Sinn Féin and left-wing parties by 42 to 11, with seven abstentions. Center-right parties Fine Gael and Fine Fail opposed the motion.

The motion stated that the city council will fly the flag “as a gesture of our solidarity with the people of Palestine living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, with the Palestinian citizens of Israel denied basic democratic rights and with the over 7 million displaced Palestinians denied the right of return to their homeland.”

Writing on Facebook, Sinn Fein Councillor Larry O’Toole said he was “proud to speak in favor of and support the Palestinian flag flying over City Hall.”

‘Nakba Day,’ also known as ‘Day of Catastrophe,’ sees Palestinians commemorate their expulsion from their homeland between 1947 and 1949. This year will also mark the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War and Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
The Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) welcomed the announcement on Facebook, with Chairperson Fatin Al-Tamimi saying she was “speechless” as she thanked the Irish people for their support.

“The refugees created during this ethnic cleansing and their descendants now number in the millions, and all are shamefully still denied their internationally mandated Right of Return to their homeland,” she added.

In an letter to councilors ahead of the vote, Israeli Ambassador to Ireland Ze’ev Boker, said that flying the flag would be“highly politically charged,” adding that “some members of the Irish Jewish community are concerned by the negative message that the flying of the flag promotes.”

Sligo County Council, on Ireland’s west coast, also voted to fly the flag at its council building from May 15 until the end of the month.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Failing Those Who Served Us By Janet Levy

Posted By on May 10th, 2017

Three years after the 2014 Veterans Health Administration scandal erupted in headlines, outrage, investigations, and the resignation of then-secretary of veterans’ affairs Eric Shinseki, veterans still must contend with an agency that provides less than stellar service.

A government report issued in February found that the VA’s shift to using more private-sector care for veterans has its own problems. They include cumbersome authorization and scheduling procedures, inadequate provider networks, and the potential for veterans having to pay their own treatment costs. Plus wait times for care, the heart of the 2014 scandal, are still long: an average of 45 days for 53% of veterans.

Problematic health care, as well as the descent into homelessness for a growing number of our nation’s veterans, belies our posture of national pride in our troops. We label them heroes, and then we fail to properly provide for them.

The problems of inadequate health care began to surface in 2012 and 2013, when two doctors at the Phoenix VA Health Care System voiced concerns. The whistleblowers said they had witnessed substandard care, that VA officials had falsified health service wait times, and that 40 veterans died while waiting for health care. These claims were later verified by the Veterans Administration, and investigations began nationwide.

A 2014 General Accounting Office audit of 731 VA medical centers and outpatient clinics reported that roughly 100,000 veterans nationwide were experiencing long wait times for health care. Another VA report detailed specific techniques used to falsify wait times.

Still other allegations of mismanagement surfaced in 2014, when a congressional committee revealed that more than $380,000 in bonuses were awarded to directors and top executives of 38 VA facilities where falsification of records and delays in care were being examined. The money was part of $2.7 million in extra pay given in 2013 to top-ranking VA officials.

Further, a 2015 VA report found that the VA had such sloppy record keeping that 307,000 veterans out of 867,000 pending cases on the VA’s list of electronic records were actually deceased. VA officials could not conclude if the veterans had received care, were still waiting for care, or had even applied for care. Nonetheless, some concluded that those veterans had died while waiting for medical help.

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

What Free Speech Isn’t The government cannot punish you for offensive speech, but your boss can fire you. By Karol Markowicz

Posted By on May 9th, 2017

Two hundred and forty-one years since America’s birth and 226 years since the adoption of the Bill of Rights protecting our freedom of speech, Americans seem to be confused about what free speech actually means. We need a refresher course in what is not free speech, and what it is that speech is free from.

As a free society, we must protect speech in the public square. That’s why the Westboro Church lunatics are accompanied by a sizable police force when they protest military funerals. It is our job as a society to permit speech, even and especially speech we find repugnant, and to protect the speaker from violent reactions to that speech. Additionally, speakers must not face repercussions from the government for what they say. If Donald Trump doesn’t like it when Saturday Night Live makes fun of him, he can tweet about it. He can’t send a police force to arrest Alec Baldwin.

This does not, however, mean that speech comes without consequences. If Westboro Church leader Fred Phelps applied for a job at your company, you would be fully within your rights to turn him down because he is a vile, hateful person whom you do not wish to employ. This general distinction has been difficult for people to grasp in the wake of several recent high-profile incidents.

Last week, Tomi Lahren settled a lawsuit with her previous employer, the conservative network The Blaze. Lahren was fired after an appearance on The View in which she told the audience that she was pro-choice. She had previously proclaimed herself pro-life; her position on abortion is one that matters to both her audience and her (now former) employer. Speaking to Joy Behar and other View co-hosts, she explained:

I’m pro-choice, and here’s why: I am a constitutional — y’know, someone that loves the Constitution. . . . I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say I’m for limited government, but I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies.

Of course, her viewers at The Blaze also consider themselves “constitutionals” (if that were a real word), believe in limited government, and yet are pro-life. She called her own audience hypocrites — and then she was fired for it.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The Pre-Existing Lie We’re talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the population. By Rich Lowry

Posted By on May 9th, 2017

If you’ve only followed coverage of the Republican health-care bill loosely in the media, you might believe that House Republicans, after much effort, passed legislation to deny people with pre-existing conditions health insurance.

The issue of pre-existing conditions has dominated the debate over the GOP health-care bill out of all proportion to the relatively modest provision in the legislation, which is being distorted — often willfully, sometimes ignorantly — into a threat to all that is good and true in America.

The perversity of it all is that the legislation is properly understood as doing more to preserve the Obamacare regulation on pre-existing conditions than to undermine it. The legislation maintains a federal baseline of protection in such cases, and says only that states can apply for a waiver from it, provided that they abide by certain conditions meant to ensure that no one is left out in the cold.

Since these provisions only involve the individual insurance market, a small slice of the overall insurance picture (about 18 million are on the individual market), and merely make possible state waivers, they are inherently limited.

You’re not affected if you get insurance through your employer (155 million people), or through Medicaid or Medicare. You’re not affected if you live in a state that doesn’t request the waiver, a category that will certainly include every blue state and most red states, too. Even if you buy insurance on the individual market and live in a state that gets a waiver, you’re not affected if you’ve maintained insurance coverage continuously and not had a gap in coverage longer than 63 days.

By this point, we’re talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the population. If you do have a pre-existing condition in a waiver state and haven’t had continuous coverage, you can be charged more by your insurer only the first year. The state will have access to $8 billion in federal funds explicitly to ease the cost of your insurance, and the state must further have a high-risk pool or similar program to mitigate insurance costs for the sick.

Clearly, if Republicans set out to recklessly endanger the well-being of people with pre-existing conditions, they didn’t do a very good job of it. The purpose of these provisions isn’t to punish people who are sick, but to create an incentive for people to buy insurance while they are healthy. (The Obamacare exchanges are failing because the law’s tangle of regulations drove up costs and made insurance economically unappealing to the young and healthy.)