Bernie’s Q&A: & Seth Rich, Biden’s appearance, Manchin, Sowell, and more! (5/17) — Premium Interactive ($4 members)

Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.

Let’s get to your questions (and my answers):

Bernie, I am curious if you have met or appeared with either Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams. I have read many of their books and articles over the years and learned much from them. Much of my thinking was transformed and crystallized by Professor Sowell’s book, “The Vison of the Anointed.” Earlier today, in a comment to an article by Professor Williams, it was suggested that the President award both of these scholars A Presidential Medal of Freedom. Are you able to weigh in on that and are you in a position to help us all out here lend our voices and support? — Michael F.

I was on the radio with Walter Williams a while back, when he was sitting in for Rush Limbaugh. I like him. And I’m a very big fan of Thomas Sowell. I’d be in favor of either or both of these men getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Hi Bernie, after you wrote Bias did you expect a sort of sea change in how the media reported news or was your goal more to an expose the left wing media for who they actually are. Bias was a great book, thanks. — Mike G.

Thanks Mike. Bias — as an idea for a book — had been percolating in my head for quite a while. When I left CBS News I decided to try to actually write it. My goal was simply to say, This is how it is; this is how they operate. I wanted to take the reader behind the curtain. I expected nothing. Certainly not how popular the book became. Since Bias came out in 2001, things have gotten worse. Cable is one reason. But the most prestigious papers in America have also gotten worse. Nothing will change until they lose customers because of their bias. Here’s the really bad news: The customer wants bias — as long as the bias validates his own bias.

Sir Bernard–Great minds think alike….as I often agree with your LOGICAL responses. My sense is you value your privacy, which I respect….but I would ask that you consider an opportunity where your most loyal fans (myself included) can meet you in the flesh, so to speak. Hopefully, from my brief profile, I come across as a reasonably sane and balanced human being. And THANK YOU for indulging me with my multi-question submissions. Be well, do good work, and keep in touch. BTW, are you or have you been a fan of Garrison Keillor’s work? — Matthew Q. I used to speak to audiences about my books — and in the process met all sorts of people … not all fans, by the way. Not sure how we would accomplish a get together … I see practical logistical “issues.” But who knows, I may be somewhere and can let you all know and maybe some gathering could come of it. As for Garrison Keillor: There was something about the tone of his voice, the cadence of his speech, that didn’t connect with me. He sounded like a funeral director. Too calm for my taste. But hey, that’s on me, right?

Bernie, I’m a right wing guy, I make no bones about it. You often mention that bias is bias, and you are correct, guys like Hannity often states he’s not a journalist but a opinion guy, is touted as a right wing propaganda network. I disagree Hannity is up front about who he is, and in my opinion, does more investigative journalism than actual journalists! Over the past 2 years it seems like Fox has gotten stories right and everyone else got it wrong, also doesn’t the fact that they get more viewers than all cable news combined point to credibility? That’s why I believe Trump is correct labeling CNN fake news! Covington High School and Jesse Smollet just 2 examples! Your thoughts. — Ralph P.

Hey Ralph. I understand what you’re saying, but let me try to add a few thoughts for you to consider. My problem with opinion people on Fox and CNN and MSNBC isn’t that they give opinions instead of straight news facts. My problem is that they’re ideologues. Hannity and the others will praise Donald Trump for doing something that they’d condemn if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton did the same thing. They’re not honest analysts. They’re sycophants who cover for Mr. Trump or Mr. Obama … for liberals if they’re liberal hosts and for conservatives if they’re on Fox. They’ll tell you what you want to hear but they won’t act on principles. The real problem, for me anyway, is that it’s ok with a lot of the audience, an audience that wants their own views validated. As for fake news: Donald Trump says journalists at times flat out make up sources, that they don’t really exist. He’s wrong 99.9 percent of the time. The president is playing you, Ralph. He’s putting the idea of fake news in your head — and the heads of all his most passionate supporters — so that you won’t believe negative news about him when it’s true. All I ask is that you consider what I just wrote. Thanks.

Bernard. My question is long so I’ll begin by apologizing for that.

Sean Hannity has shown that he’ll say pretty much anything to defend his friend, President Trump, but I think his spreading of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory was probably the most disturbing example.

Hannity tormented the Rich family for weeks by using their murdered family member as a political pawn to provide an alternate/phony explanation for Russia’s hacking of DNC e- mails. Hannity even embraced Julian Assange, who he once said (when Obama was president) should be arrested for declaring war on the U.S.

Mueller determined that Assange (arrested last month), did indeed fabricate the Rich story to draw suspicion away from Russia, who he was secretly working with. Being that Hannity lent Assange a huge television platform from which to spread that lie (which turned Assange into a hero of the MAGA people), one would think that Hannity would have suffered some professional consequences for the stunt.

That hasn’t happened. Instead (as far as I can find) Hannity hasn’t apologized or acknowledged responsibility for his role as an unwitting Russian asset who fed his audience weeks of Wikileaks/Russian propaganda. I doubt he even lost a single viewer over the fiasco. Its like it never even happened.

Who’s to blame for this lack of accountability? Is it 100% his viewers (who couldn’t care less)? Should Fox have penalized him at some point, in some way? Thank you — James

Who’s to blame? Let’s start with Hannity, who as you correctly point out, will say pretty much anything to defend the president. Then let’s go to Hannity’s bosses, people who put the bottom line on the top of their list of concerns (though, as I recall, management did tell him to knock off the Seth Rich misinformation). Then there’s the audience, that loves Trump and hates just about anyone who doesn’t love Trump. It’s a corrupt operation, James — and I’m not simply talking about opinion shows on Fox. The other outlets follow the same business model: Tell the audience what it wants to hear … validate their biases … give them red meat so that they’ll come back for more.

Bernie: I have a theory of the American economy and economic/political perceptions I wanted to run by you. I have long struggled with the (mis)perception that the President is in charge of the U.S. economy, currently at $20 Trillion. In my opinion, no one person, committee, The Fed, etc. is “in charge” of such a large, diverse and robust force. But Presidents clearly have influence over economic activity. So what’s the explanation? My metaphor is that the economy is like a large river like the Mississippi. The President doesn’t make it flow; that’s ridiculous. The Mississippi is a huge and massive force that hurdles downriver on its own. However a President can keep it flowing unimpeded, keep it clean and unpolluted, make sure those using it do so responsibly and in coordination with each other. He/She can make sure the economic river doesn’t flow out of its banks and ruin other objects in its path (externalities). So getting outside of my metaphor, when Obama weighed down the economy with regulations and restrictions, he caused a pitiful recovery after one of the worst recessions of the past 50 years. While Trump gets credit for deregulation and tax cuts, he gets demerits for these Chinese tariffs. Let’s put to bed this notion that the President is in charge of the economy. The people in charge are those huge, thick and willing participants in the daily exchange of goods and services (otherwise known as capitalism). You like my river analogy, or no? — Steve R.

Me Likey! I totally agree with you, Steve. I just told my barber a few days ago that no president is “in charge” of the economy. The real people who run the economy are businesspeople, big and small, and their customers. People like my barber. But, as you say, presidential policies can do things to keep the river running smoothly — or they can do things to muck it up. You nailed it, Steve.

What is your opinion of drivers who advertise the COEXIST bumper stickers? My personal opinion is that they are naive at best, and arrogant at worst for this reason: I may be wrong, but it always appeared to me that the bumper stickers are NOT aimed at addressing the ones who actually SHOULD take the attitude that we need to COEXIST with one another. As another bumper sticker reads: “I can’t coexist with people who want to KILL ME!” Your thoughts are appreciated. Best Regards—The Emperor

Look at it this way, Emperor: The original COEXIST number stickers represent 3 major religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The greater of the bumper sticker was simply sending out a hopeful message that we should all live side by side peacefully. You can’t possibly be against that, right? The message is aimed at everybody. Is it a tad idealistic. Sure. So? You think the message is aimed at you — and you don’t need the pep talk, the other guy does. Emperor, we’re polarized enough already. Let it be.

Last Sunday I heard ’s program at 10 on Fox. He had a guest who was a constitutional prosecutor who outlined unequivocally why Trump did not commit obstruction. Did you hear his program and what do you think?? I don’t feel he obstructed the investigation because he asked McGann to talk with Rosenstein about firing Mueller because he had a conflict of interest. — Jeffrey W.

I did not see the program, Jeffrey, but I have some thoughts on your question. Mark Levin is a smart man but every week he has people on who agree with him; people who say the kind of things Fox viewers want to hear. You tell me: Has he ever had anyone on who had a view contrary to his? Has he ever had a liberal on who told him something he hadn’t considered? Do you think he wants to have an interesting conversation or just feed the viewer what the viewer wants to consume? CNN and MSNBC are just as bad. I’m worn out by all of them, though, in fairness, Levin does have interesting people on his show.

Is it my imagination (I doubt it) or has Joe Biden had plastic surgery recently? He looks stretched out and gaunt and older. I just saw some older pictures of him with President Obama and the smile lines, wrinkles and fullness are more appealing. Or is this something you’re not supposed to notice or talk about? He was open about his hair plugs, wasn’t he? — John F.

According to an April 28th story in the Daily Mail: “Former Vice President Joe Biden has undergone numerous cosmetic procedures to alter his appearance, including Botox, hair transplants, and dental work, plastic surgeons say.

“Surgeons say that Biden, 76, who polls show is the front runner in the race for the Democratic nomination for president, began to look noticeably different during the 2008 campaign.”

So you’re onto something John. The article concludes with this: “Biden has never confirmed undergoing any of the procedures, nor has he spoken about his appearance publicly.”

Hi Bernie, I dislike when people complain about things without offering solutions, so never do so myself. A few years ago I came up with some solutions to what I consider to be the nation’s biggest problems. For example I determined, following a root cause analysis, that the biggest problem we have is how few people understand our own economic system. Aware that there are hundreds of museums in DC dedicated to everything from art, to spying to space, and even to news, but none to our system of economics, I outlined a plan for a Museum of Capitalism where parents could take their kids and learn about the prosperity and innovation that free markets bring. (and maybe some politicians, commentators, and journalists too) Recently, I have added to the ‘problem list’ the attacks on due process and free speech — not by government — but by campus mobs, censorship by tech companies, and social media police. But I wanted to ask your opinion about the other ‘new problem’: incompetence in journalism. I was in the automotive business and obviously familiar with the ISO-9000 standards to assure quality and wondered if there were journalism standards developed by an independent non-governmental body like ISO and a monitoring system. It sure seems that the business of journalism is lacking in standards and accountability. — Michael E.

Here’s a link to the standards put out by the Society of Professional Journalists.

But, and forgive me for stating the obvious … No one goes to journalism jail if they don’t follow the rules, which aren’t really rules, but guidelines.

Hello again, Mr. Goldberg! Last time I asked you a question regarding citizen journalists and cited a pair of examples, though I am more interested in the concept of them than the examples themselves. This week I would like to ask you about taxpayer funded media (ex. BBC in UK, and SVT on TV and SR on the radio in my country of origin, Sweden). Is this concept good or bad? Why/why not? — Carl-Simon Pihl

I’m not a fan of tax funded media, Carl-Simon. I understand that in theory the journalists are not beholden to their benefactor — the federal government. But what if the news organization displays biases against either Democrats or Republicans. Will there be retaliation by the offended party? Maybe. Even if there isn’t, journalists should be free to cover government without wondering if the government they’re covering will cut off their funds. I know it works in other countries. And I realize that the U.S. government funds, to some extent, NPR and PBS. I just don’t like it.

What is your opinion of the Better Angels Nonprofit Organization that is attempting to help unify (or depolarize) the country? — Ival S.

Their heart is in the right place. Anything that might unify or depolarize the country is worth a try. But I’m not Pollyanna. It may be asking too much for the organization to have much influence on our deeply divided country. But like chicken soup, it couldn’t hurt.

Bernie: What is your perspective on the issue of guns, the second amendment and related issues. Does the right to bear arms really protect us in this modern age? — William W.

The Supreme Court has decided that Americans have the right to have guns. I have no problem with that. In fact, I believe the bumper sticker notion that if the government outlawed guns only outlaws would have guns. But in the past when I’ve written that all rights come with limitations — including the First Amendment — so you have no right to have a surface-to- air missile in your backyard, I’ve heard from gun people who were not happy with me; they believe that limitations are nothing more than a slippery slope. People have a right to protect themselves, they have a right to have guns, but there are limits, as I say — and if they’re reasonable, I have no problem with them. Of course, what I think is reasonable may not be what the other guy thinks is reasonable.

Mr. Goldberg, Like you, I believe that the news media should provide us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Which is why I am so appalled – and presume you are, too – by how the biased media have for so long gotten away with hiding from the American people the real story about all these “no fly zones” our government has been creating in foreign lands. Every one of them is in a country whose leaders hate America – yet we do for them something truly wonderful that we don’t do for our own country. You and I and our fellow Americans have to swat flies – yet our tax dollars are enabling people living under the rule of some of our worst sworn enemies not to have to. There’s no area in America that is off limit to flies, right? But at our cost foreign adversaries enjoy huge spaces where their people are guaranteed never to be bothered by flies. You can be sure these despots are taking the credit for eliminating the menace of flies; they sure aren’t telling their people to be grateful to America.

Two questions:

1. Why do you think the media never ask presidential or congressional candidates to state a position on this important issue? 2. As someone with such an abundance of awards for insightful reporting and such a well deserved reputation for sound thinking and great analysis, do you have any suggestions for how we the people might be able to arouse public opinion enough to put an end to this disgraceful practice?

You’re funny. Ever think of going pro?

To follow up on your response regarding the positive qualities of Joe Manchin in the “truth to power” question posed last week, I’ve often thought that he leans Republican regarding his support of the Kavanaugh confirmation and his support of fossil fuels in his coal rich state. Have you heard any conjecture regarding the possibility of him switching parties? What is your opinion on this topic? He clearly does not fit the vision of the ultra liberals who now run the Democratic Party. — Ken M.

He should switch parties and I keep hoping he will. But I don’t think it’ll happen. He’s a lifelong Democrat and a switch to the other side wouldn’t be easy for him. But you’re right, Ken, he clearly does not fit the vision of the lefties who run the Democratic Party.Maybe someday he’ll get fed up with their left-wing nonsense. One can hope, right?

Bernie, I think that “Unreported News” (for lack of a better term) has long been more of a problem with news reporting than “Fake News”. For example stories like Fast & Furious, Benghazi, or the IRS and VA scandals during the Obama administration as well as the classified email abuse, etc… during Hillary’s campaign I’d often see first on Fox News or on conservative websites, and then updated regularly. At the same time CNN, MSNBC, the Big 3 nightly news broadcasts along with the major newspapers would seem to only grudgingly and briefly report on, or in some cases outright ignore, such a subject until it came to a point they no longer could and had to give it the coverage it deserved. I realize that it goes both ways; that Fox News et al. tend not to harp on Republican or Trump’s controversies, missteps and failures. Do you have any thoughts on news organizations ignoring or undereporting news they think could hurt “their side” of the political spectrum? — Barry R.

I’m glad you added that last thought, Barry … about how it goes both ways. Because it does. You’re absolutely right that unreported news is a bigger problem than so-called fake news. It’s not only a form of bias, it’s journalistic corruption. It’s most obvious in the cable news business — the key word being “business.” Because that’s why it happens: Money. As I’ve said many times before, it’s about giving the audience what it wants to hear. And, to your question, NOT giving the audience what it doesn’t want to hear.

Facebook continues to silence/ban conservative thought under the “they’re breaking our rules of conduct” excuse which apparently consists of posting non liberal viewpoints. All the while vile liberal posts continue with impunity. My question, when do you think the FCC will step in and treat it like any other public communication forum? Hold it’s feet to the fire. If ever……. — John M.

As much as I’m against silencing voices social media sites don’t like, I’m against the federal government stepping in. I’m probably in the minority on this, but I see these companies as purveyors of information not unlike old school newspapers. The NY Times, for example, can ban any voices it chooses to. It can publish letters to the editor only from liberals. They can ban conservative voices on the editorial page. It’s not good, but the government has no right to “fix” the problem. But, as always, I can be wrong — especially about this because I’m not a social media guy.

Mr. G, In view of the biases and misleading reporting by pretty much every medium, except a select few, where is one to go for simply honest and objective news? I read the WSJ and enjoy most of their paper, but it is limited news for the most part. So, any recommendations? — Terry J.

It’s a good question, Terry, and the best I can offer is to go to more than one place for news. If you like the WSJ then check out the NYT also. The problem, of course, is that too often bias creeps into hard news reporting. Sometimes it shows up by what the paper doesn’t cover. (See an exchange between Barry and me above.) I’ve said before that on TV, I like Special Report on Fox. I think they’re straight shooters.

Is William Barr the only adult in the room? — William W.

It sure looks that way, William.

Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.

Name: *

Email Address:

Subject:

Message: * Submit

“Ice Buckets & Oracles” and “Christmas Might Come Early”

Let me confess that, aside from donating time or money, I rarely understand the odd things done on behalf of charities. For instance, even decades ago when I was an advertising copywriter, my fellow workers would often ask me to donate money based on how far they walked or ran on the weekend. I understood the part about donating, but I couldn’t fathom why the distance they covered should have anything to do with the amount.

These days, a great many people are allowing themselves to be doused with a large bucket of ice water as a way to help finance one cause or another. Although I admit to experiencing a certain joie de vivre each and every time I see some left- wing show biz celebrity being given an ice bath, I fail to see the connection to charity. Am I to assume that some people have added being assaulted with ice cubes to such bucket list items as enjoying the view from the top of the Eiffel Tower, wind-surfing in Hawaii and helping the Obamas pack up and move out of the White House?

That reminds me that I have some good news to pass along. It seems that two Hawaiian councilmen decided to name a local beach in Barack Obama’s honor, but backed down in the face of public outrage. So it seems that contrary to the popular notion that everyone in Hawaii is a stoned, leftist, slacker, there are still some stoned slackers who haven’t entirely lost their minds in the Aloha State.

One poor soul who must still be addicted to marijuana, even if he may have kicked the nicotine habit, is Obama. How else to explain that in an election year when every Democratic candidate is trying his or her best to distance themselves from the White House, he decides to sabotage their campaigns by announcing, “I’m not on the ballot this time, but my policies are”? What’s next? Will he begin funneling the loot he collects at his endless fund-raisers to the Republican National Committee?

Moving on, I have never understood the objection many people have to capital punishment. I mean, assuming that they themselves are not residing on Death Row, why would anyone object to justice being meted out to cold-blooded killers?

I know that some folks claim that the state should not be engaged in the taking of life. To me, that means they’re so morally dysfunctional that they equate the taking of an innocent life with the taking of a guilty one.

In order to be consistent, would these self-righteous schmucks also object to executing the jihadists beheading Americans, Brits and Kurds, over in Iraq? If not, why not? And if so, what difference does it make to them where the butchery takes place, and what possible reason can they have for punishing murderers in the Middle East more harshly than murderers in, say, the Midwest?

Something else I can’t figure out is why it’s expected to take an entire year to train the Free Syrian Army so they can fight ISIL on our behalf. After all, these are the very same people who have been doing a decent job of fighting Assad’s far more formidable army for the past three years!

Finally, when I ridicule Warren Buffet, it’s not because I’m envious of his enormous wealth. The truth is I would like to be a little richer than I am, but not as rich as Buffet. For one thing, I would never want to devote that much of my life to the accumulation of money. For another thing, I would never want to be 84 years old and have to spend so much time keeping track of it and making sure nobody is stealing it while I’m distracted, busy sleeping or having a tuna fish sandwich.

But when the so-called “Oracle of Omaha” states that Hillary Clinton will win in 2016, I find myself wondering why anyone takes him seriously. I have no problem with his making a prediction, even one with which I happen to disagree. The problem is because he’s very wealthy, a great many people actually think he knows what he’s talking about. It even explains why he’s called the Oracle of Omaha, instead of the Rich Old Coot from Nebraska.

It will obviously come as a thunder bolt to some, but being rich only means that some individuals have the knack for making money, just as some have an ear for music and others have a knack for wiggling their ears.

Bill Gates knows a lot about computers, Donald Trump knows a lot about real estate and Ted Turner knows a lot about sailboats and bourbon, but grown-ups are being childish when they take them seriously when they prattle on about matters outside their expertise. It’s like those young dopes who take to heart every dire warning uttered by Matt Damon about global warming or accept as gospel the nonsense Sean Penn spews forth on the evils of capitalism.

In short, rich people know how to make money in the same way that beavers know how to build dams.

But only a schnook would ask a beaver to predict the outcome of a presidential election or refer to one as an oracle.

Christmas Might Come Early

I understand that many conservatives have come to believe that there is no difference between the two major parties. Some of them even stayed home on Election Day in 2012 and bragged about it to me, as if their refusal to vote for Mitt Romney, thus making it easier for Obama to win a second term, somehow reflected well on them.

If the GOP wins back the Senate and banishes Harry Reid from his current position as the second most powerful politician in Washington, I swear I wouldn’t ask Santa for anything more.

I believe that so many people have repeated the lie about Republican politicians being indistinguishable from Democrats that a lot of people who should know better have swallowed the bilge. One party voted 100% for the Affordable Care Act, the other party opposed it. One party has tried to sweep every scandal from Operation Fast & Furious to Benghazi and the IRS under the carpet, while the other party has tried to get to the bottom of them because, contrary to Hillary’s self-serving lie, the truth always makes a difference. And a lie that is repeated a thousand times isn’t magically transformed into the truth, even though demagogues and those involved in advertising might wish it were otherwise. More than one person has written to me with the expectation that even if the GOP only gains five Senate seats in the midterm elections, there is a good chance that Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia might agree to switch his party affiliation, especially if he were to be promised an important committee chairmanship.

My advice to Sen. Manchin is that he should make the switch before Nov. 4th. After all, the GOP stands a very good chance of winning the Senate without him. In which case, he loses his bargaining power and merely looks like the worst sort of political opportunist, sort of like that weasel Jim Jeffords, who switched in the other direction and was thereafter regarded with contempt by those on both sides of the aisle.

Speaking of weasels, no politician should ever have his name attached to anything – be it a bridge, a highway or a post office – unless he personally built it or paid for it. The only exception is his tombstone.

In what has come to be known as American diplomacy, Joe Biden just announced that we are giving Gaza an additional $212 million to help them rebuild everything the Israelis knocked down in retaliation for unending missile attacks. The truth is that most of the money will be spent, not on apartment houses, but to construct new tunnels and buy more Katyushas. So, once again, this administration tries, like so many past ones, to buy the friendship of terrorists. It’s bad enough that it adds to our national debt, but the practice also adds to our national shame.

Interestingly enough, those who have campaigned to change Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day believe that the white race has a great deal to be ashamed of when it comes to the way that Indigenous People, otherwise known as Indians, have been treated in this country.

According to the lunkheads, the natives were a kind and peaceful people who lived on loving terms with Mother Nature until Caucasians landed on Plymouth Rock. When you realize that all the tribes were basically Stone Age savages who would inevitably have been overtaken by the modern world, it makes you wonder if these dunces also believe that the blacks in Africa were residing in the Garden of Eden until the Europeans came along.

At least Columbus Day pays tribute to a superb seaman and reminds people to visit an Italian restaurant in the near future. What would a celebration of the Indigenous People look like? Inasmuch as they were notorious for scalping their enemies and devouring their internal organs, I’m sure the menu would leave something to be desired.

As for their creative heritage, when you get past blankets, trinkets, totem poles and wickiups, it hardly measures up to that of the European transplants whose heritage, even in the 1600s, already included Butler, Milton, Moliere, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Velasquez, Donne, Cervantes, Purcell, Bach and Shakespeare. Of course not everyone would agree with me. I’m sure that those whose religion is multiculturalism, and whose devotion to political correctness forever dooms them to be fatuous lunkheads, prefer cave paintings to Rembrandt.

Speak of the Devil, have you heard that in Nebraska, school kids are being told to call each other Purple Penguins because terms such as “boys” and “girls” might be offensive to transgendered eight year olds? It’s all part of an agenda prepared by an organization calling itself Gender Spectrum, which seeks to make bathrooms accessible to one and all, no matter the nature of the individual’s plumbing. Funny, one used to be able to assume a certain level of commonsense from Midwesterners, but that was before the Purple Penguin crowd moved in and took control of school boards and city councils, forcing normal people to park their brains at the curb.

But the lunacy unfortunately isn’t limited to Nebraska, Iowa or any of those other flat rectangular states. In Washington, D.C., the resident space aliens refuse to stop incoming flights from West Africa, even though France and England have done so in an attempt to keep Ebola from taking root in their countries. The only reason we don’t follow suit is because most of those flights are carrying black passengers, and no politician wants to risk being labeled racist, even though their cowardice might lead to an epidemic of terrifying proportions.

By deciding not to rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriages, the Supreme Court allowed lower court rulings to stand, thus pretty much making it the law of the land.

In just about every state that has placed the issue on the ballot, the people have voted against it. Nevertheless, we’re told that polls indicate that Americans have changed their minds. That may well be true. But I’d hate to think that most Americans don’t share my objection to unelected federal judges assuming the authority to override the laws of Congress and the stated will of the people, which in 1996 led the House and Senate to overwhelmingly enact the Defense of Marriage Act.

We appear to be trying very hard to turn ourselves into a Third World nation brimming over with indigenous knuckleheads of the sort who lack the most basic skills and have to import even our blankets and cheap trinkets from China.

I’m beginning to think I may have been a tad too hasty when I hopped off Santa’s lap.

Burt’s Webcast is every Wednesday at Noon Pacific Time. Tune in at K4HD.com His Call-in Number is: (818) 570-5443

©2014 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write [email protected]. Could a Conservative Democrat Sideline Hillary in 2016?

It shouldn’t really surprise anyone that the 2016 presidential election, despite being nearly three years away, has already been talked about quite a bit in the national news media. After all, a number of likely Republican candidates are already beginning to emerge, and they’ve been finding creative ways to distinguish themselves from their peers. Some of them have gone the subtle route, working on unique messaging and putting themselves on stage in nontraditional venues. Others have staged publicity stunts like one-man filibusters designed to draw attention not only to themselves but also to the issues they believe are important. Some have done both.

National polling agencies have been busy pitting names like Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul up against the politician who is clearly believed not only to be the Democratic Party’s frontrunner, but also the coronated candidate: Hillary Clinton.

Sure, there’s been some talk in the media about the possibility of a Democratic candidate challenging Hillary from the left. Names like Elizabeth Warren (U.S. Senator from Massachusetts) have been brought up, but I believe it’s merely been done for the sake of discussion. I don’t think anyone really views her as having a serious chance.

What I don’t believe the media has talked about at all, however, is the possibility of a conservative Democrat entering the primary race and challenging Hillary Clinton from the right. Maybe such a notion seems ridiculous to seasoned political , but I think that if someone like U.S. Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia decided to throw his hat in the ring, Hillary might actually have a bit of a fight on her hands.

Conventional wisdom, of course, suggests that I’m wrong. In a presidential primary race, it’s been recognized that the successful strategy is to appeal to one’s base. In the cases of both major political parties in this country, the base isn’t found at the moderate middle, but rather at the outer wing where the ideology is stringent and the passion runs deep.

Thus, the wise move for a Democratic candidate has typically been to campaign as a liberal until winning the party nomination. Barack Obama understood this during the 2008 campaign, and the strategy helped him in his primary race against Hillary Clinton. Clinton chose to position herself as a relative moderate by defending her support of the Iraq War. This seemed a safe strategy for her at the time because she believed she had the nomination locked up from the very beginning. She saw no other candidates as a serious threat. So, she was running as a general election candidate before she needed to, and that left an opening for a charismatic, historic opponent to excite lefties and rally support behind him.

Why then do I think that someone like Joe Manchin has a chance of nabbing the Democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton? It has to do with the country’s growing distaste forBig Government.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, a record number of Americans (72%) believe that Big Government is the single greatest threat to the United States. While some of that sentiment can probably be attributed to a catastrophic national debt and the slowest economic recovery in U.S. history, the spike is mainly fueled by the country’s awakening to all of the adverse affects of Obamacare.

The Affordable Care Act is currently generating all-time-low approval ratings, and there’s little reason to suggest that it will become any more popular.

In addition to the millions of Americans who have already lost their healthcare plans as a result of the law, tens of millions more are slated to lose theirs once the employer mandate kicks in. The promise that people can keep their doctors has been exposed as a sham. Insurance premiums aren’t lowering as promised – they’re rising . Deductibles aren’t going up down. They’re going up. A $1 billion website tasked with managing the program has been an IT disaster. Employers are preparing to cut back on work hours and eliminate jobs in order to avoid the costs associated with Obamacare. And to top it all off, the entire funding mechanism of the program relies on the assumption that young people will voluntarily pay into a system that makes no economic sense to them whatsoever.

Reality has slapped the electorate across the face, and the numbers are showing that.

Important demographics for the Democratic party are already turning on Obamacare. Nearly 60% of millennials, who President Obama relied on in two elections, now oppose the law. Not only does a majority of currently insured voters oppose the law… A majority of uninsured voters does as well, which is striking considering that they were the very people the Affordable Care Act was primarily designed to help. The GOP has even taken the lead in national polling for the midterm elections, erasing the advantage the Democrats had long maintained.

And unfortunately for Democratic politicians who have supported Obamacare, it’s not just Republican and Independent voters who’ve realized that they’ve been screwed over by the law.

Some respected political analysts like Charles Krauthammer are even predicting that Obamacare will deal a crushing blow to big-government that will last a decade.

It may be hard to imagine, but by the time 2016 roles around, the political environment in this country could look very much different than it does today. If Obamacare truly ends up being a permanent albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton may have a pretty tough time escaping its clutches.

She was, after all, a high-ranking member of the administration that gave us Obamacare. More importantly, she was also the architect of Hillarycare, the infamous healthcare plan from 1993 that was actually more government-intrusive and socialistic in nature than Obamacare. I know that sounds kind of hard to believe, but it’s true. And if Americans have forgotten about Hillarycare, I’m sure many conservative groups with lots of money are anxious to remind them about it.

Also, I may be in the minority, but I still think Hillary Clinton’s handling of the Benghazi attack may still come back to haunt her, especially if the victims’ families come forward during the campaign and draw attention to the lies she personally told them to their faces while their dead sons’ caskets sat just feet away.

If she’s hit with that one-two punch, even a fawning media could have trouble saving her candidacy. Let’s face it: Hillary Clinton is no Barack Obama. She doesn’t have his charm. She doesn’t have his oratory skills. She doesn’t connect with people the way he does. Perhaps most importantly, she doesn’t have his gift of being able to completely disassociate herself from the things she says and does. She may not be the strong candidate she appears to be today.

In 2016, it’s possible that a small-government Democrat like Joe Manchin – someone who came to Washington after Obamacare had been passed, and has been critical of the law – could actually be more appealing to a slim majority of the Democratic Party than Hillary Clinton. If such a person could provide a clean break from Obamacare and Big Government while still appealing to social liberals within the base on the non- economic issues they care about, it seems to me that they could be a very formidable opponent.

Heck, I would even suggest that Manchin may remind Democratic voters more of President Bill Clinton (the man who famously declared that “the era of big government was over”) than Hillary herself does. He’d certainly be less of a lightning rod for controversy than Hillary.

Is the scenario I’m describing likely? As much as I would like it to be for the sake of the country, it probably isn’t. Even if the electorate sustains an ideological shift to the right, I think the liberal base of the party is influential and well- organized enough to effectively slander and destroy the candidacy of anyone in the party that is to the right of Hillary.

Still, I wouldn’t say that the scenario is out of the question, especially if Krauthammer is right and the failure of Obamacare serves as a turning point for how the public views the role of government.

It sure would be ironic if Obamacare managed to achieve the one thing that Republicans have been unable to in recent years: Making the public understand just how dangerous Big Government is, and holding to account those who gave us the problem.