The Europe the Left Wants Us to be Like

Germany’s Bundestag has enacted legislation that not only attacks the concept of free speech (apparently an American concept, and not a human one), but also requires private enterprises to be the government’s enforcers of the new law.

Under the new legislation, social media companies have 24 hours to remove posts that obviously violate German law [hate speech, fake news, terror propaganda, and the like] and have been reported by other users. In cases that are more ambiguous, Facebook and other sites have seven days to deal with the offending post. If they don’t comply with the new legislation, the companies could face a fine of up to 50 million euros ($57.1 million).

And it’s government that will decide what constitutes hate speech, what news is fake, what is propaganda.  As if any of this should be proscribed by government.

The answer to unpopular speech, the answer to hurtful speech, is not silence but yet more speech.  Apparently, though, that’s another solely American concept and one that’s wholly missed in Europe.

Sadly, this is what our own Progressive-Democrat Left wants for us, too.  Oh, wait—they’ve already shown their attitude toward free speech.  At colleges and universities, at “protests” in DC, etc.

Sanctuary Cities

For the Left it means sanctuary from inconvenient laws.  Nevertheless, the House has passed two bills aimed at eliminating such sanctuary by reducing the ability of local cities and counties to give sanctuary to illegal aliens.  One such is the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which looks to persuade—notice that: not force, as many on the Left insist it does—locals to hold folks in jail who’ve already been arrested by locals for local violations for up to 48 hours in response to an ICE detainer.  Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien who had just been released—deliberately in contradiction of an ICE request.  Opponents, though, insist that

cooperation [with ICE] would undermine trust in law enforcement in immigrant communities….

This is just cynical: requiring that laws be obeyed (NSCA, after all, only requires existing procedure be followed) undermines respect for law and law enforcement.  Sure.

The other bill, “Kate’s Law,” for the unfortunate Ms Steinle, whose murderer was a five-times deported and reentered illegally alien, would successively increase the price of repeatedly illegally reentering the US after deportation.  The protests from the Progressive-Democrats in Congress are just as loud and foolish on this one.

It’s stupid, it has nothing to do with the criminal act that was done against Kate Steinle, which was a terrible thing[.]

Except that it has everything to do with that “terrible thing.”  Had the law been in effect at the time, it’s possible—likely, even—that Steinle’s multiply-deported and reentered murderer would have been in jail at time and Steinle would be alive today.  Of course, maybe not, too, but as the Progressive-Democrats are wont to say, “If it saves just one life….”

Oh, wait….

Fake News

During a recent White House press briefing, the White House press representative Sarah Huckabee Sanders was answering a question from another reporter, when Brian Karem, of the Prince Georges County Sentinel, interrupted her and his colleague (I suppose his words were more important than others’ so he was going to say them regardless of who actually was speaking) to whine about the NLMSM being called out by the Evil Administration for press’ penchant for publishing misleading rumors disguised as fact.

You’re inflaming everybody right now with those words[.]

Huckabee Sanders didn’t dignify his arrogant rudeness with a response.

Karem took his beef to MSNBC News and Chris Matthews’ show:

There are reporters who have given their lives to get news to the public and to be labeled as “dishonest” and “fake news” rankles me[.]

Indeed there have been reporters who’ve sacrificed their lives, sometimes via miserable and lingering deaths, to get news to the public.  The whining, worse, today’s inflaming pseudo-journalism and the dishonesty of reporters who print deliberately unsubstantiated rumors purveyed by carefully anonymous “sources” sullies and insults the memory of those reporters.

Guys like Karem rankle me.  But he has gotten his 15 minutes of fame with his rant.

Misleading NLMSM

Again.  On 22 Jun, CNN published, as part of its pseudo-journalism series on alleged ties between President Donald Trump and his associates and Russia, a claim that Anthony Scaramucci, an informal advisor to President Donald Trump, was tied to the Russian Direct Investment Fund, a sovereign fund of the Russian government and led by Dmitri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, with whom readers might have a passing familiarity.  The fund has been sanctioned by the US government (by the Obama administration; although it’s not under Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, then or now, another of CNN‘s false claims), hence the nefariousness of Scaramucci’s alleged association and the depth of CNN‘s smear against him.

After Breitbart, et al., exposed the misleading, anonymous, single-source rumor nature of CNN‘s hit piece, CNN further assaulted the public’s ability to know by deleting the piece from the Internet, rather than merely admitting it was false and retracting it.  CNN with this move has chosen to censor the news in addition to making it up.

But that’s not all.  CNNMoney Executive Editor Rich Barbieri sent a memo to CNN staff requiring that, henceforth,

No one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me and Jason [VP of Premium Content Video Farkas] first.

There’s less to that, though, than meets the eye.  The editors now demanding pre-publication review are the same editors who allowed the carefully unsubstantiated story to be published in the first place.  These are the same editors who set that standard in the beginning. Too, given the volume of writing and the pace of publication, how carefully will that “review” be done on all those stories, even on a single subject? They’ll just get a lick and a CNN promise. And what about all the unsubstantiated rumors on other subjects these guys publish or repeat?

There’s more to it, too, than meets the eye.  CNN is adding some seeming scapegoats to its “corrections:”

CNN announced late Monday that Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Haris have left the network.
Frank wrote the story. Lichtblau edited the piece, and Haris oversaw the CNN department, which is a new investigative unit.

More importantly, there’s still no requirement for corroboration by on-the-record sources of those “anonymous” sources’ claims.

Nothing is changing at CNN.

Medicaid-Receiving Companies Object to the Senate Bill

The Senate is proposing an overhaul of Obamacare and an improvement to the health coverage providing industry, and one of those improvements is a rollback of the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid and an eventual capping of Federal funds transfers to the States’ Medicaid programs.  There are objections to this.

The primary objections are from insurers and hospitals, et al., who get a significant fraction of their income from the guarantees of Medicaid payments; they don’t want to have to compete in the open market.  They prefer the supposed safety of that guaranteed income, paltry though it is, especially compared to the income available from a free market, and they don’t care what that “safety” costs those who must pay for it.

The States themselves, for instance, in addition to financing their own Medicaid programs, are required to contribute to other States’ Medicaid programs through those Federal tax transfers, and by extension they’re forced to contribute to other States’ spending decisions generally.

Let Medicaid be the State-run program it was intended to be. Keeping the monies that would otherwise be transferred to other States would both leave more money for funding a State’s own program and force each State to become more fiscally responsible, instead of exercising a claim on other States’ money.  That fiscal responsibility also will contribute to the rising prosperity of freer market.

And let the health care providers and coverage providers compete for income from that much larger market.