The following is the opening satirical monologue from “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1124-no-common-ground-b" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show.</a>“
You know, when things in America get genuinely upsetting, I sometimes like to take a step back, sidle unobtrusively to the door, slip out, run to my car before anyone notices I’m gone, drive to the airport and catch a plane to one of the isolated islands of French Polynesia where I can wile away the hours with my bare-breasted native lover Tehamana while dining on luscious local fruits and drinking the milk of coconuts, preferably laced with vodka or possibly LSD, whichever is more likely to transform this shrieking hellscape into a colorful, star-speckled hallucination, something like the album cover of the Magical Mystery Tour, except without Paul being dead.
But if that option is not available because of airplane schedules or short supplies of really good drugs, sometimes instead I remind myself that periods of insanity and disorder like this have been a re-occurring feature of American history. Just this week, Michael Barone, the brilliant political analyst — unless it was the Michael Barone who sells ice cream from that big white truck near Central Park — but it’s probably the political guy, right? — anyway, he wrote a helpful article in the New York Sun, pointing out that “America Goes Crazy Every 50 Years or So.” 
Barone begins with discussing the War of 1812 when the British burned Washington, D.C., to the ground before Andrew Jackson defeated their forces at the Battle of New Orleans. And that really was crazy, when you think about it, because the British had just finished burning Washington, D.C., to the ground, so defeating them at New Orleans was incredibly ungrateful. We should have strewn their feet with roses and asked them to come back every few years to make sure no one built the place back again. I mean, sure, who wants the British here, when they all talk like homosexuals? I mean, that’s why we had a revolution. A lot of good that did us.
Where was I? Oh yeah…
Fifty years later, we went crazy again and started killing each other in the Civil War. Now don’t get me wrong. The Civil War was fought over the very important issue of women’s rights. I mean, how was Scarlett O’Hara supposed to hold down a job when she had to wear a skirt with the circumference of a helicopter pad? Fortunately, Clark Gable was able to smuggle her out of Atlanta as the city burned down around them, so the war was won and everything went back to normal. But for a minute there, I thought we were in real trouble.
Crazy Time arrived again like clockwork fifty years later with the election of Woodrow Wilson. Wilson did establish some beloved and long-lasting American traditions, like blacks voting for Democrats who hate them and Americans getting killed in wars that have nothing to do with us. But he did go overboard with the 1917 Espionage Act which gave the government power to silence and imprison its political enemies. Luckily, nothing like that could ever happen today, or if it could, I wouldn’t be stupid enough to say so out loud because you know what happens.
Then came the ’60s, when American socialists burned down cities, encouraged spiking crime, destroyed the relations between the sexes, and gutted our institutions. Then came the 2000s, when American socialists burned down cities, encouraged spiking crime, destroyed the relations between the sexes and gutted our Institutions. But no matter how ravingly insane American socialists became, some things in this country remained dependably consistent, like Bernie Sanders.
So my message to you today is that, no matter how much the flaming wreckage of our cities begins to look like the inside of Bernie Sanders’ mind, except without all those women who enjoy getting tied up for some reason, you should never lose hope. Or if you do lose hope, you should never lose faith that you could have hope if you hadn’t lost your faith. And if you lose both your faith and your hope, you shouldn’t get that look on your face where your lower lip starts to tremble and your cheeks get all red and puffy. Unless you’re a girl, then it can be kind of cute, but don’t overplay it. 
Because whatever happens, you can always just remind yourself, that every 50 years America goes crazy, then we get over it. In, like, 49 years or so.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Andrew Klavan</a> is the host of The Andrew Klavan Show at The Daily Wire. A popular political satirist and Hollywood screenwriter, Klavan is also an award-winning novelist. His newest novel is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Habit-Mind-Cameron-Mysteries/dp/1613163517/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=&amp;sr=" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Strange Habit of Mind</a>, book two in the Cameron Winter Mystery series.
The views expressed in this satirical article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

march 2020 calendar fllying pages on sky and clouds – 3d rendering

Every 50 Years America Goes Crazy

Andrew Klavan

Civil War

Readers Pass

Satire

U.S.

Woodrow Wilson

Supreme Court decisions sadly invite the deepest divisions in American civic life today. A simple tonic to this endless divide would be for Americans to actually read the decisions they protest and fight about so much.
Do you consider yourself to be a warrior in the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">pro-life movement</a>? Is <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf">religious liberty</a> and the increasing domain of secularization a central concern to you? Do you consider the rise of the “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf">administrative state</a>” to be a form of soft tyranny that is incompatible with representative democracy?
Or, do you feel like <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf">the Second Amendment</a> is either outdated or under endless assault by Blue America?
No matter which issue concerns you the most, chances are we Americans are debating it in some fashion. Thus, here is a suggestion that will significantly improve the state of American civic discourse. I know it’s abundantly optimistic and maybe a bit naive, but here it is: pick at least one Supreme Court decision from this year’s consequential term and take an hour to read it.
I’m serious.
Don’t treat these decisions and the entire judicial branch as arenas for gladiatorial legal throw-downs. In reality, as Woodrow Wilson once observed, the Supreme Court is “a constitutional convention in continuous session.” Every year, nine extraordinary and unique legal minds have an extended conversation amongst themselves about the meaning of the Constitution on a variety of issues.
This year it was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/united-states-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-leaves-abortion-restrictions-to-states">abortion</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-scotus-strikes-down-new-york-concealed-carry-restrictions-restrictions">gun rights</a> and the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/it-is-just-incredible-to-know-that-i-did-nothing-wrong-joseph-kennedy-celebrates-scotus-win-for-religious-freedom">free exercise of religion</a>. Next year it will be <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/briefing/supreme-court-abortion.html">affirmative action and election law.</a> And unlike the other two branches, the judicial branch does something utterly extraordinary: it bestows a civic gift to the American people, a gift we rarely unwrap. The Supreme Court justices go to great lengths to explain why they do what they do and why they think the way they think. As Americans, we have the opportunity to drink from the jurisprudential trough of their insights.
But instead, we often engage in shallow knee-jerk political cheerleading.
We can do better. The decisions are actually quite easy to read. Yes, there is some legalistic lingo to navigate (supra, stare decisis, writ of certiorari), endless citations to previous decisions, and there are a variety of opinions being offered at the same time (the majority opinion, the dissent, concurring opinions, etc.). But on balance, the average literate American can easily comprehend the arguments being made in the decisions.
<h4>Justices Are Actually Good Writers </h4>
Most of the justices on the Supreme Court are exceptional writers. While few will ever capture the verve and vim of Antonin Scalia, whose opinions were laced with both high-minded legal reasoning and snappy one-liners (he once <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/13/justice-antonin-scalia-dead-supreme-court-opinion-lines-pure-applesauce">assailed</a> a majority opinion as “pure applesauce”), the justices aim for clarity because they aren’t simply writing to modern-day America.
They are writing to posterity and the likes of the Harvard Law Class of 2055. They know their arguments will be studied, critiqued, and either celebrated or condemned by future students and scholars long after they are gone. They would much rather be regarded as a John Marshall Harlan, whose sole dissenting voice in Plessy v. Ferguson was used to overturn the decision decades later in Brown, than a Roger Taney, who penned the worst decision in American history, Dred Scott.    
<h4>You Might Learn Something </h4>
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">decision</a> is a perfect illustration of why Americans should read Supreme Court opinions.
Many Americans dislike the Roe and Casey decisions because they dislike abortion. But it would be wise to understand why so many consider Roe a grievous constitutional mistake. It is also important to learn how the majority behaved akin to a quasi-legislature in its 1973 written opinion, and why even the likes of <a href="https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_7108099e-f5a0-11ec-9394-f7680161c067.html">Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a> thought it was a poorly reasoned and executed decision. In the Dobbs decision, Justice Alito explains all of this with utter clarity.Moreover, a reader would learn about the evolution of the Court’s thinking on reproductive rights and how the 1992 Casey decision jettisoned earlier claims of privacy in favor of a broad argument about substantive due process and the “undue burden” test.
Most Americans do not know how close the Court came to overturning Roe thirty years ago in Casey, when <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/09/04/justice-kennedys-flip/17eb4e0b-72f6-4678-b5bb-7a3e8f79b395/">Justice Anthony Kennedy flipped his vote</a>, purportedly causing Scalia to drive to Kennedy’s house to argue with him about the matter. Alito lays out in the Dobbs decision why arguments grounded in substantive due process do not apply to abortion. In his concurrence, Clarence Thomas lays waste to the entire doctrine of “substantive due process” itself.
Finally,  people who are down on John Roberts these days might become more sympathetic to his judicial posture if they took the time to read his dissent. Judicial conservatism has more branches than simple originalism or textualism. It also includes an appreciation for social stability, a resistance to activism, a preference for judicial incrementalism, and an acknowledgement that even incorrectly-decided decisions should be upheld if they have been woven into the fabric of American civil society. Roberts would have preferred it if the Court had simply upheld the Mississippi law in question by rejecting “the viability rule” without courting the controversy overturning Roe would invite. As he writes, “The Court’s opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us.”
<h4>You Might Change Your Mind, Reinforce Your Convictions, Or Find Empathy  </h4>
As citizens, it is important to know our own convictions, but it’s also important to understand why we believe what we believe.
As a college student, I remember raging at the Supreme Court for declaring the line-item veto to be unconstitutional because, in those days of youthful self-righteousness, I was adamantly against earmarks and pork barrel legislation. And yet, when I read <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/417/">the Court’s decision</a> on the matter, I realized the justices were right and that the nature of Article II executive power did not comport with the extension of the president’s veto power.
Likewise, the Dobbs dissent is thoughtful, noting, ”As of today, this Court holds, a State can always force a woman to give birth, prohibiting even the earliest abortions. A State can thus transform what, when freely undertaken, is a wonder into what, when forced, may be a nightmare.” It is no small thing in a rights-based society to rescind a right, even if one believes it was incorrectly granted in the first place.
George Washington foresaw this constitutional conundrum before the United States was even a union, <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/translet.asp">writing</a>, “Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. … It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved.”     
Appreciating the perspectives of those with whom we disagree isn’t simply a pleasant gesture, it’s an essential quality of good citizenship. Let’s start to practice it.  
Jeremy S. Adams is the author of the recently-released Amazon best-selling book Hollowed Out: A Warning About America&#8217;s Next Generation. He has taught American civics for 24 years in Bakersfield, California and was the 2014 California Teacher of the Year (DAR). You can follow him on Twitter @JeremyAdams6.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

v3 Adams – Read The Decision Before You Rage or Strut

Here’s An Idea: Read The Decision Before You Rage Or Strut

Anthony Kennedy

Antonin Scalia

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

A New Jersey High School named after former President Woodrow Wilson is being renamed after activists cited its namesake’s legacy of racism.
The Camden High School District announced that it would begin the process of renaming the high school, built in 1930, nearly a year and a half after activists began circulating a change.org petition to <a href="https://www.change.org/p/katrina-mccombs-superintendant-of-schools-remove-woodrow-wilson-name-from-high-school?redirect=false">change the school’s name</a>.
“After years of examining the legacy of former US President Woodrow Wilson, WE have come to see that his views and actions contradict the values and diversity We see in Woodrow Wilson High School today as well as the society WE live in Camden NJ,” the petition reads, adding that “[we] must be honest with Our People about the truth of a School that was named after a white Supremacist who was a former US President.”
“To continue to have such a name on a school only aides as a continuous reminder of a true systemic oppression that has not only been foreseen by US as parents but also Now through the eyes of Our Children today.”
The petition gained newfound momentum in the summer of 2020 after the death of George Floyd. Announcing the move last June, Camden School District Superintendent Katrina McCombs cited community concern about the school “being named after an individual who expressed and demonstrated racist values.” A renaming committee was formed following the announcement. Suggested namesakes included former U.S. Representative and Civil Rights Advocate John Lewis, former President Barack Obama, and late Camden school board president Martha Wilson, <a href="https://www.nj.com/education/2021/11/nj-district-will-restart-renaming-of-woodrow-wilson-school-says-process-will-be-inclusive.html">NJ.com reported</a>.
The school district put the move on pause in the fall to focus on COVID-19 protocols, but the process was completely restarted in October with a new committee. “[I]t’s too early in the process to speculate on specific names,” a school spokesperson told NJ.com.
“We are proud that our schools represent places of diversity and inclusion, and we plan to increase our efforts to reshape the identity of this venerable and cherished school,” the district said in a statement to NJ.com. “We plan to collaboratively work with current Wilson students, parents, alumni, and community leaders on an inclusive process to rename the school.”
“The district is grateful for the collaboration and support of the community on these efforts and looks forward to completing this significant project.”
Wilson served as the 28th President of the United States from 1913 to 1921. Before that, he served as Governor of New Jersey and President of Princeton University. One of the early progenitors of the modern progressive movement, Wilson is known for his expansion of the federal government and interventionist, democracy-focused foreign policy. Among several racial controversies, Wilson’s federal bureaucracy was notoriously segregated, and he screened the racially controversial film “Birth of a Nation” at the White House in 1915.
News of the school’s renaming comes as statues of two other former presidents were removed from public display in New York City. The City’s Public Design Commission removed a statue of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/thomas-jefferson-statue-officially-booted-from-new-york-city-council-chamber">Thomas Jefferson</a> from the City Council Chamber over concerns about Jefferson’s relationship to slavery. A statue of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/problematic-theodore-roosevelt-statue-to-be-removed-from-nycs-museum-of-natural-history">Theodore Roosevelt</a> was also removed from the American Museum of Natural History over concerns that the statue symbolizes racism and colonialism.

New Jersey High School Changing Name Over ‘Racist’ Namesake

New Jersey

Many Americans probably do not realize this, but there is no constitutional requirement whatsoever that the President of the United States saunter off to the U.S. Capitol and deign to address a packed legislative chamber in quasi-monarchical fashion.
Consider the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii">text</a> of Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
<blockquote>[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.</blockquote>
The president, in order to fulfill his constitutional duty, must therefore merely &#8220;give&#8230;information&#8221; to Congress and &#8220;recommend&#8221; to Congress policy measures he feels are &#8220;necessary and expedient&#8221; to maintaining and improving the health of the republic. Nowhere in the constitutional text is there any mention of a presidential obligation to strut into the U.S. House chamber, be feted as Euro-style royalty, and deliver a highly symbolic and substance-less address to lawmaker minions. On the contrary, one might argue that such garish sycophancy toward the President is at odds with our basic constitutional structure, which established Congress as the most powerful branch.
What gives, then? Why do we put ourselves through this tawdry, bilious affair each and every year?
The short answer is that it is due to the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/14355/weak-gop-obamacare-replacement-woodrow-wilsons-josh-hammer">first paradigmatic progressive</a> to occupy the White House: Woodrow Wilson. Presidents George Washington and John Adams had opened the republic by delivering oral State of the Union Addresses before President Thomas Jefferson — ever the <a href="http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/100">tyrant&#8217;s bane</a>, notwithstanding sundry other personal defects — decided to <a href="http://time.com/4166680/thomas-jefferson-state-of-the-union/">unceremoniously quash</a> the oral speech. For over a century, Jefferson&#8217;s example was the model that all successors would follow. The oral State of the Union Address was not rescucitated until 1913, upon the accession of Woodrow Wilson — a would-be autocrat and devoted Hegelian who would dedicate his political career to an <a href="http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/107/110377/ch21_a5_d1.pdf">all-out assault</a> upon the Framers&#8217; constitutional design and the principles of the Declaration of Independence alike — to his proverbial throne.
At his core, Woodrow Wilson despised all that the Framers considered exceptional about the American experiment. Wilson&#8217;s 1912 campaign — dubbed the &#8220;<a href="http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/107/110377/ch21_a5_d1.pdf">New Freedom</a>&#8221; — was open and unapologetic in its desire to supplant the republic&#8217;s natural rights-based negative liberty order and tripartite separation of powers constitutional framework with an affirmative benefits conferral-based positive liberty order and administrative state-centric monarchical construct. As George Will wrote in a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-obamas-desire-to-transform-the-united-states/2012/09/05/35f2d582-f790-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html">powerful 2012 column</a>:
<blockquote>Progress, as progressives understand it, means advancing awayfrom, up from, something. But from what?
From the Constitution’s constricting anachronisms. In 1912, [Woodrow] Wilson said, &#8220;The history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental power.&#8221; But as [Claremont Review of Books Editor Charles] Kesler notes, Wilson never said the future of liberty consisted of such limitation.
Instead, he said, &#8220;every means&#8230;by which society may be perfected through the instrumentality of government&#8221; should be used so that &#8220;individual rights can be fitly adjusted and harmonized with public duties.&#8221; Rights &#8220;adjusted and harmonized&#8221; by government necessarily are defined and apportioned by it. Wilson, the first transformative progressive, called this the &#8220;New Freedom.&#8221; The old kind was the Founders’ kind — government existing to &#8220;secure&#8221; natural rights (see the Declaration) that preexist government. Wilson thought this had become an impediment to progress.</blockquote>
Contemporary students more frequently associate FDR&#8217;s New Deal with the commencement of progressivism, but as I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/14355/weak-gop-obamacare-replacement-woodrow-wilsons-josh-hammer">wrote</a> two years ago, &#8220;much like Kylo Ren and the First Order attempting to finish what Palpatine, Vader, and the Empire started, there would have been no FDR had there been no Woodrow Wilson.&#8221; It was Wilson — the unvarnished racist who <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2649006">re-segregated the Selective Service</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-unfortunate-effects-of-the-birth-of-a-nation/2017/07/21/b6fc5920-6c1e-11e7-abbc-a53480672286_story.html">proudly aired</a> the Ku Klux Klan propaganda film, &#8220;The Birth of a Nation,&#8221; at the White House — who began in earnest the systematic project of stripping away the essence of American exceptionalism and replacing it with fanciful Germanic-inspired notions of &#8220;enlightened&#8221; administrative governance. Many unreconstructed paleoconservative types and &#8220;Lost Cause&#8221; heretics <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/13394/five-lessons-abraham-lincoln-would-have-todays-josh-hammer">distort the legacy</a> of Abraham Lincoln so as to depict him as a tyrant, but it truthfully was not until Woodrow Wilson that America had a true <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0205/p09s01-coop.html">fascist-like demagogue</a> occupying the White House.
Which brings us to the present. Presidents today who continue to orally deliver rhetorically extravagant State of the Union Addresses are — whether they realize it or not — following in the perverse footsteps of Woodrow Wilson, the would-be autocrat who shamelessly aggrandized executive power and made no effort whatsoever to conceal his intense disdain for the deliberative, &#8220;<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/47713-laws-are-like-sausages-it-s-better-not-to-see-them">sausage-making</a>&#8221; legislative process that the Framers so greatly cherished.
And for what end? For a few applause lines? To produce bread and circuses for the masses? To give the President&#8217;s political party a few clips to air on the campaign trail? To keep the cable news punditocracy gainfully employed?
There is nothing humble — and everything supercilious — about the modern phenomenon of the orally delivered State of the Union Address. In its present form, the orally delivered State of the Union Address is directly at odds with the notion of <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/congress-supreme-branch-of-government-not-coequal/">congressional supremacy</a> — however outmoded that may seem, to some — that the Framers conscientiously enacted in our nation&#8217;s founding charter.
We should kill this fundamentally silly tradition, once and for all. Jefferson had it right — and Wilson, as always, had it wrong.

HAMMER: The State Of The Union Address Is Stupid And It Should Be Killed

Donald Trump

Leftism

State of the Union

Thomas Jefferson

Trump Administration

At a campaign rally on Tuesday, socialist Senator Bernie Sanders called President Trump &#8220;the most racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted president in history.&#8221; Racial minorities seem not to have gotten the memo, as support for Trump among <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/16/trump-approval-rating-african-americans-rasmussen-poll/1013212002/">black</a> and <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/28/trumps_approval_rating_rises_among_hispanics_137382.html">Hispanic</a> voters has surged in recent months and the Jewish State <a href="https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/New-Western-Wall-train-station-to-be-named-after-Trump-520135">names</a> a train station after Trump in Jerusalem. Likewise Trump&#8217;s alleged sexism must come as a surprise to the historically large number of <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/369112-trumps-first-year-in-office-was-the-year-of-the-woman">women</a> he has appointed to senior administration roles, as well as to the gay voters who watched him <a href="https://qz.com/823649/donald-trump-unfurled-a-rainbow-flag-with-lgbt-written-on-it-at-a-rally-in-greeley-colorado-to-express-his-so-called-support/">wave</a> a rainbow flag on stage before acknowledging the &#8220;our LGBTQ community&#8221; at his party&#8217;s national convention &#8212; a <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288807-trump-to-appeal-to-lgbt-community-in-convention-speech">first</a> for a Republican presidential nominee.
The racism charge is rich coming from Sanders, whose sometime political party waged the bloodiest war in American history to preserve slavery, founded the Ku Klux Klan, instituted Jim Crow laws, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/before-charlottesville-democrats-voted-for-racist-policies-for-more-than-100-years">opposed</a> civil rights legislation for a century, and <a href="https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm">destroyed</a> the black family. Socialists like Sanders don&#8217;t know much about <a href="https://www.americanexperiment.org/2018/04/millennials-ignorant-history-also-like-socialism-coincidence/">history</a>, so in the spirit of education, let&#8217;s examine some truly racist presidents.
In 1913, Democrat president Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the federal government, replaced 88% of black federal service supervisors with whites, and by 1914 began requiring photographs from government job applicants. Wilson&#8217;s racial bigotry stands out even by the standards of his age, and his Republican predecessors Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft made a determined effort to appoint black Americans to public office. By contrast, Wilson defended the Ku Klux Klan in passages that later appeared in D.W. Griffith&#8217;s infamous film The Birth of a Nation, which Wilson screened at the White House.
After the 1936 Berlin Olympics, Democrat president Franklin Roosevelt snubbed black, four-time gold medal winner Jesse Owens from a reception honoring exclusively white American competitors. Owens might have counted himself lucky, however, comparing his treatment with that of other racial minorities during Roosevelt&#8217;s reign. In 1942, Roosevelt arrested and interned more than 100,000 Japanese Americans, while curiously sparing Americans of German and Italian descent, by executive order.
Lyndon Johnson has the laudable distinction of becoming the only Democrat president in history to sign a Civil Rights Act, albeit a century after Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 over Democrat president Andrew Johnson&#8217;s veto. (Republican presidents would go on to enact additional Civil Rights Acts in 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, and 1991.) Nevertheless, Johnson remained <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism">virulently racist</a> in his personal conduct, referring to Asians as &#8220;hordes of barbaric yellow dwarves,&#8221; according to biographer Robert Caro, and driving trunk-loads of snakes to gas stations to scare black attendants. Johnson&#8217;s chauffeur Robert Parker recalled that Johnson once asked him if he would prefer to be called by his name rather than by various, demeaning nicknames. He said yes, and in Parker&#8217;s telling Johnson responded, &#8220;No one&#8217;s gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, nigger, you just let it roll off your back like water. &#8230; Just pretend you&#8217;re a goddamn piece of furniture.&#8221;
Bernie Sanders&#8217; historical ignorance comes as no surprise; even the left-wing Washington Post editorial board has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanderss-shocking-ignorance-on-his-core-issue/2016/04/07/83a8e33c-fc34-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html?utm_term=.5d5961ca11a9">acknowledged</a> Sanders&#8217; &#8220;shocking ignorance.&#8221; Unfortunately for the future of our democratic republic, such ignorance appears to be <a href="http://americanheritage.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/America's%20Increasing%20Ignorance%20-%20Civic%20Studies%20Summaries.pdf">widespread</a> and worsening among the voting public.

Bernie Calls Trump ‘Most Racist President In History.’ He Forgot About These 3 Guys.

American History

Bernie Sanders

Democratic Party

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)

Racism

Republican Party

The Democrat Party and their allies in the mainstream media often try to smear Republicans with accusations of being sexist, bigoted, homophobic, Islamophobic, and racist. However, in a new PragerU <a href="https://www.prageru.com/videos/inconvenient-truth-about-republican-party">video</a>, former Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science Carol Swain breaks down the &#8220;inconvenient truth&#8221; that it was primarily Republicans, not Democrats, who were responsible for the advancement of women and minorities. 
&#8220;Racist. Sexist. Republican,&#8221; Swain says. &#8220;These words are virtually interchangeable. At least, according to most professors, journalists, and celebrities. So, are they right? Let&#8217;s take a look at history.&#8221;
&#8220;The Republican Party was created in 1854,&#8221; she continues. &#8220;The first Republican Party platform, adopted at the party&#8217;s first national convention in 1856, promised to defeat, quote, &#8216;those twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery.&#8217; Those &#8216;twin relics&#8217; were spreading into the western territories. Republicans feared that as those territories became states, polygamy and slavery might become permanent parts of American life. Polygamy, the marriage of one man to multiple women, devalued women and made them a kind of property. Slavery, of course, did the same to blacks. Literally.&#8221;
Swain presents a side-by-side comparison of the history of both parties, including how the Democrat-controlled South seceded from the North in order to protest the Republican cause of emancipation of the slaves, as well as how Democrats pushed back on Republicans&#8217; efforts to allow African-Americans to vote and serve in Congress.
&#8220;In 1870, the first black senator and the first black congressman were sworn in, both Republicans,&#8221; she says. &#8220;In fact, every black representative in the House until 1935 was a Republican. And every black senator until 1979 was, too. For that matter, the first female member of Congress was a Republican; the first Hispanic governor and senator were Republicans. The first Asian senator? You get the idea.&#8221;
WATCH:
<div>
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="377" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OURy5WFp0zk" width="670"></iframe></div>
In a previous video for PragerU, Swain addressed the so-called &#8220;Southern Strategy&#8221; and the myths associated with the &#8220;switch&#8221; in the South from being predominantly Democrat to predominately Republican.
WATCH:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UiprVX4os2Y" width="854"></iframe></div>

</div>

PragerU: The Inconvenient Truth About The Republican Party

Abraham Lincoln

Conservatism

Dennis Prager

Prager University

United States

On this date a century ago, the United States declared war on Wilhelmine Germany, entering World War I. The war shaped the future of the world in unthinkable ways: the United States became the foremost guardian of Western civilization, Germany collapsed into the Weimar Republic and then Naziism, and the Russian Tsardom became the Soviet Union. All of the 20th century was launched by World War I.
Because President Woodrow Wilson rightly got America involved in World War I, he has received a fair bit of praise today. Arthur Herman of National Review, while acknowledging the serious flaws of Wilsonian idealism, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446483/world-war-i-100-year-anniversary-american-entry-legacy">writes</a>, &#8220;Whatever else it was, America&#8217;s role in what was then the world&#8217;s bloodiest and most destructive war signaled the emergence of the US as the new arbiter of a new world order, one that would be built around America&#8217;s economic strength, military power, and moral authority&#8230;&#8221;
David Frum of The Atlantic writes, &#8220;The question confronting the United States in 1917 was the same question that confronted Americans in 1941, and again after World War II, and now again as China rises: Who will shape world order? The United States and its liberal democratic traditions? Or challengers impelled by aggressive authoritarian ideologies of one kind or another?&#8221;
All of this is true &#8211; and stopping the Kaiser-led Second Reich was a necessity, even if the allies failed after World War I to prevent the rise of Soviet Russia, preserve the Weimar Republic or stop the rebuilding of Germany under the Third Reich into an enormous war machine.
But it does neglect one problem with Wilson: Wilson&#8217;s original position.
Wilson did not begin as a starry-eyed interventionist. His campaign slogan in 1916 was &#8220;he kept us out of war.&#8221; Wilson issued a declaration of neutrality before Congress in 1914. And this, of course, affected German war calculations. But the United States quickly began shipping war materiel to its allies, Britain and France; the Germans attempted to blockade those shipments, resulting in the submarine warfare that eventually drew the United States into the war three years later.
What if Wilsonian isolationism had been supplanted by a sober warning to Germany that continued aggressive activity would have drawn American intervention &#8211; as indeed it eventually did, but only after Germany had driven Russia out of the war and strengthened its territorial holdings?
Wilson&#8217;s blindness on foreign policy didn&#8217;t stop at Germany. He initially opposed the rise of the Reds in Russia after the fall of the Tsar, but then did little to prevent their accession to power, stating that Russia would have to decide its leadership problems for itself. The result: the rise of the Nazis, World War II, and the Cold War.
In short, here&#8217;s the lesson of Wilson: clarity on foreign policy matters. And America&#8217;s worst wars often result from failure to identify America&#8217;s positions and articulate them in clear-cut fashion.
Most of the great foreign policy tragedies in American history have been due to lack of clarity. American isolationism after World War I cleared the path for the remilitarization of Germany and the outbreak of World War II. America&#8217;s strategy of graduated escalation, as new National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster wrote in his book Dereliction of Duty, failed to demonstrate the necessary mettle to the Viet Cong. America&#8217;s mixed signals in China led to the Korean War. Ambassadorial foolishness in Iraq helped precipitate the first Gulf War. Clintonian vacillation led Osama Bin Laden to believe the United States was a paper tiger. Obama&#8217;s pullout from Iraq led to the rise of ISIS.
And now, Obama&#8217;s mixed signals in Syria &#8211; followed by Trump&#8217;s mixed signals in Syria &#8211; have led to an untenable situation. When Obama drew his false red line in Syria, and after he handed power over to Russia in the aftermath of Bashar Assad&#8217;s violation of his red line, he gave the impetus for action to America&#8217;s enemies. Earlier this week, when the Trump administration clarified that they believed Assad should remain in power, they gave tacit permission to Assad to engage in massive human rights violations, and for Russia to continue supporting them.
Now, something terrible has happened &#8211; just as it has always happens after America purposefully lessens her role in the world.
There is no substitute for clarity in foreign policy. But now the Syrian question is complex. It involves sacrifice and risk. America could be drawn into a great power conflict with Russia; America could be facilitating more chaos in Syria.
One thing is obvious: Trump, like every president before him including Wilson, must now take a clear stand. But that&#8217;s precisely the thing he lacks.

On World War I, Syria, And The Risk Of Mixed Messages

Barack Obama

Russia

Syria

Commentary editor John Podhoretz linked to an interesting piece on Twitter on Thursday:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Please read this extraordinary <a href="https://twitter.com/davidfrum">@davidfrum</a> essay on World War I and the lessons of history: <a href="https://t.co/vjPn9ZvGcR">https://t.co/vjPn9ZvGcR</a>
&#8212; John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) <a href="https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/849966565688832000">April 6, 2017</a></blockquote>
Frum&#8217;s <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/world-war-i-legacy-democracy/394616/">piece</a> is definitely worth a read, but it also highlights the fact that many Americans are not really familiar with World War I. The war is in the realm of forgotten history; yet it was a war that forever changed the landscape of the globe.
Here are seven things you need to know about America&#8217;s involvement in World War I.
1. World War I stemmed from European conflicts. The war was triggered by the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie by <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gavrilo-Princip">a Southern Slav nationalist</a> who wanted to drive Austria-Hungary out of the Southern Slav region. That set off a domino effect in Europe, as it prompted Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia, which resulted in Russia declaring war on Austria-Hungary, Germany declaring war on Russia and then France for refusing to pledge neutrality. The timeline looked something like this in 1914: (<a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I">H/T:</a> Britannica)
<blockquote>
Austria-Hungary declared war against Russia on August 5; Serbia against Germany on August 6; Montenegro against Austria-Hungary on August 7 and against Germany on August 12; France and Great Britain against Austria-Hungary on August 10 and on August 12, respectively; Japan against Germany on August 23; Austria-Hungary against Japan on August 25 and against Belgium on August 28.
</blockquote>
In other words, &#8220;the war pitted the Central Powers&#8212;mainly Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey&#8212;against the Allies&#8212;mainly France, Great Britain, Russia, Italy, Japan, and, from 1917, the United States,&#8221; according to Britannica. Which raises the question: why did the U.S. get involved in a warring conflict between European nations?
2. America entered the war after Germany attacked numerous American ships. America had initially remained neutral during the war; President Woodrow Wilson&#8217;s <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/06/521793810/at-a-hefty-cost-world-war-i-made-the-u-s-a-major-military-power">re-election slogan</a> was &#8220;He kept us out of war,&#8221; which he rode to another term in the White House. Circumstances changed a year later when Germany launched submarine attacks against U.S ships and the discovery of the &#8220;Zimmerman Telegram,&#8221; in which intercepted German communications revealed that Germany was attempting to forge a deal with Mexico in which &#8220;Germany would help Mexico recover the territory it had ceded to the United States following the Mexican-American War&#8221; in exchange for Mexico supporting Germany&#8217;s war efforts, according to <a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/wwi">the State Department&#8217;s website</a>. These actions eventually swayed Wilson toward issuing a declaration of war against Germany; Congress subsequently approved.
3. To the surprise of the world, America&#8217;s forces won the war for the Allied forces. America&#8217;s military might was not taken seriously by Kaiser Wilhelm. In fact, when he was told that unleashing German submarines as a means of war would result in America entering the war, Wilhelm responded with a note that read, &#8220;I do not care.&#8221;
&#8220;Even if the Americans did declare war on Germany, he blustered, they were just a bunch of cowboys with an army barely worthy of the name,&#8221; <a href="https://www.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304632204579337012650058546-lMyQjAxMTA0MDIwNTEyNDUyWj">wrote</a> King&#8217;s College lecturer Nick Lloyd in a Wall Street Journal column. &#8220;What use would these weaklings be against Germany&#8217;s legions?&#8221;
America did only start the war with 130,000 troops, but the troops swelled to a whopping four million by the war&#8217;s end, according to <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/06/521793810/at-a-hefty-cost-world-war-i-made-the-u-s-a-major-military-power">National Public Radio</a>. Between the draft and an influx of volunteers, the American military had reached a remarkable size to fend off the Central Powers.
Additionally, American Gen. John &#8220;Black Jack&#8221; Pershing changed the war&#8217;s strategic front from <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/trench-warfare">trench warfare</a> to open warfare, which brought &#8220;mobility to warfare by emphasizing American aggressiveness and marksmanship,&#8221; per <a href="https://www.army.mil/article/49291/pershings-decision-how-the-united-states-fought-its-first-modern-coalition-war">the Army&#8217;s website</a>. The change in tactics and the size of America&#8217;s forces under the command of British and French troops eventually brought Germany to request an armistice.
4. World War I transformed America into a world power. Not only because of the massive increase in the size of America&#8217;s military, but because &#8220;the military also modernized and became more professional,&#8221; per NPR.
5. However, America&#8217;s transformation came at a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/opinion/should-america-have-entered-world-war-i.html">cost</a>. There were 117,000 Americans killed and 202,000 wounded during the war.
6. World War I set the stage for World War II. New York Times columnist Michael Kazin <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/opinion/should-america-have-entered-world-war-i.html">argued</a> that America&#8217;s intervention into World War I is what indirectly led to World War II:
<blockquote>
How would the war have ended if America had not intervened? The carnage might have continued for another year or two until citizens in the warring nations, who were already protesting the endless sacrifices required, forced their leaders to reach a settlement. If the Allies, led by France and Britain, had not won a total victory, there would have been no punitive peace treaty like that completed at Versailles, no stab-in-the-back allegations by resentful Germans, and thus no rise, much less triumph, of Hitler and the Nazis. The next world war, with its 50 million deaths, would probably not have occurred.
</blockquote>
But it was not necessarily the war itself that led to World War II; it was the vacuum left in place by America and the Allies. Lloyd noted in his column that following the Senate&#8217;s failure to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, America and the Allies retreated from the world stage for a time; fascism and Nazism arose in their absence. World War I also opened the door toward the Bolshevik Revolution overtaking Russia.
7. Had America not intervened in World War I, the consequences would have been dire. Frum argued in his piece that without America&#8217;s intervention, &#8220;the Kaiser&#8217;s Germany would have emerged from such an outcome as the dominant power on the continent of Europe,&#8221; meaning that &#8220;the United States would have gotten an early start on the Cold War, and maybe a second hot war, supported by fewer and weaker allies against a richer and more dangerous opponent &#8212; and one quite likely to have developed the atomic bomb and the intercontinental ballistic missile first.&#8221;
&#8203;Additionally, Frum noted that without America&#8217;s intervention, Germany&#8217;s imperialism would have won the day and struck a massive blow against democracy.
That is the ultimate takeaway Frum believes we should take from World War I: if America remains on the sidelines, &#8220;the aggressive and illiberal&#8221; will rise in its place and the world will move away from the freedoms that Americans hold dear.
<a href="https://twitter.com/bandlersbanter">Follow Aaron Bandler on Twitter.</a>

7 Things You Need To Know About America’s Involvement In World War I

David Frum

After seven years of campaigning nonstop to &#8220;repeal and replace&#8221; Obamacare, Republicans have <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14161/ryancare-5-serious-problems-republican-replacement-ben-shapiro">finally introduced</a> their long-overdue healthcare &#8220;replacement&#8221; plan. The plan, which maintains the worst of Obamacare&#8217;s actuarially <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/lie-lie-lie-ryan-and-co-caught-in-twisted-pretzel-of-lies-to-preserve-obamacare">insolvent regulations</a>, pretends that there is a meaningful economic distinction between subsidies and tax credits (note to Republicans: there isn&#8217;t), inexcusably kicks the can down the road on reining in the 2010 law&#8217;s pernicious Medicaid expansion, and cowers at the almighty altar of no less arcane a figure than the Senate parliamentarian, makes for an overall less-inspiring performance than Mariah Carey&#8217;s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zihtKw1uY8E&amp;feature=youtu.be">Times Square meltdown</a> this past New Year&#8217;s Eve.
By accepting the procedural premise that one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy can be thoroughly refashioned by a single piece of top-down, heavy-handed legislation, the GOP&#8212;the putatively more classical liberal and constitutionalist of our two major parties&#8212;has itself capitulated to the overarching framework of FDR&#8217;s New Deal: that massive, one-size-fits-all, all-encompassing pieces of regulatory legislation are within the proper aegis of the U.S. Congress.
Instead of systemically uprooting all of Obamacare via budget reconciliation &#8212; which, no matter what Speaker Paul Ryan or anyone else says about the big, bad Senate parliamentarian, is eminently <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/a-destroyed-health-care-system-because-of-a-parliamentarian">doable</a> &#8212; and then proceeding to pass small, piecemeal, consensus legislation such as incentivizing cross-state line insurance options, expanding health savings accounts, and equalizing tax treatment for employer-based and individually purchased plans, the GOP has merely regurgitated &#8220;Obamacare Lite.&#8221; As Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro accurately noted in his <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/14306/ep-267-will-trumpcare-live-or-die-ben-shapiro">podcast</a> last Friday, Republicans never, ever win when they merely try to be Democrats Lite. The party of slavery, Jim Crow, and state-sanctioned prenatal infanticide will always spend more and buy more votes with &#8220;free&#8221; stuff than will the GOP.
But the intellectual forfeiture that is the <a href="http://www.speaker.gov/healthcare">American Health Care Act</a> (&#8220;AHCA&#8221;) actually cuts even deeper than FDR and the New Deal. Indeed, Republicans&#8212;as bad as this is&#8212;have not seen fit to merely accept the fatal conceit that one-sixth of the U.S. economy can be centrally managed and dictated by a single piece of all-encompassing legislation. By also assenting to the notion that the federal government has as outsized a role to play in the conferring of positive benefits as the AHCA envisions, Republicans have furthermore undermined the Founding Fathers&#8217; classical liberal ideal of a negative rights-securing government of strictly limited powers and legitimized President Woodrow Wilson&#8217;s perversion of that Founding ideal toward a more power-hungry federal government revolved around the bestowing of positive rights.
Let&#8217;s start with first principles. The John Locke-inspired, negative rights-securing nature of American republicanism is evident from a cursory glance at the most preeminent words of Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s 1776 <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript">Declaration</a>:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.&#8211;That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed&#8230;
Jefferson could not have been clearer. The entire basis of the American experiment is that a government is needed to secure preexisting natural rights: that is, that the citizenry would not have a positive right to receive positive benefits, but would instead have a right to be free from sundry forms of government abuse and coercion. As I have <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/11730/free-enterprise-intrinsically-moral-age-trump-josh-hammer">noted</a> before, the strict limitations the Constitution places on governmental power are inextricably linked to the Declaration&#8217;s annunciation of its philosophical first precepts &#8220;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-texass-ted-cruz-gives-tea-party-a-madisonian-flair/2012/08/01/gJQApiwePX_story.html">to the end that individual liberty might be preserved</a>.&#8221; This is not conservative/libertarian/classical liberal historical revisionism; it quite literally is why the United States of America was founded as a sovereign nation.
President Woodrow Wilson, the first true modern Leftist to occupy the White House, sought to uproot all of this. Wilson, a repugnant racist in his personal life and an unrelenting zealot for big government in his public life, pursued nothing less than the wholesale perversion and distortion of the republic&#8217;s original Lockean/Jeffersonian conception of liberty. Here was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-obamas-desire-to-transform-the-united-states/2012/09/05/35f2d582-f790-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html?utm_term=.b7ad5ab7f756">George Will</a>, writing right before the 2012 Democratic National Convention, on how Barack Obama might be said to be the nation&#8217;s fourth &#8220;transformative progressive,&#8221; after Wilson, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson:
&#8230;[Wilson] said, &#8220;every means .&#8201;.&#8201;. by which society may be perfected through the instrumentality of government&#8221; should be used so that &#8220;individual rights can be fitly adjusted and harmonized with public duties.&#8221; Rights &#8220;adjusted and harmonized&#8221; by government necessarily are defined and apportioned by it. Wilson, the first transformative progressive, called this the &#8220;New Freedom.&#8221; The old kind was the Founders&#8217; kind &#8212; government existing to &#8220;secure&#8221; natural rights (see the Declaration) that preexist government. Wilson thought this had become an impediment to progress. The pedigree of Obama&#8217;s thought runs straight to Wilson.
Many people today believe that FDR was the first true left-wing president, but much like Kylo Ren and the First Order attempting to finish what Palpatine, Vader, and the Empire started, there would have been no FDR had there been no Woodrow Wilson. Wilson laid the incipient legwork for everything that FDR eventually did.
Back in the days of Wilson and FDR, the Party of Lincoln could often be counted upon to mount a philosophical, first principles-based objection to this distortion of the Founders&#8217; vision. As I <a href="http://www.redstate.com/diary/josh_hammer/2014/08/01/why-we-fight-3/">wrote</a> in 2014, &#8220;when Benjamin Franklin spoke of &#8216;a republic&#8212;if you can keep it,&#8217; it was with folks precisely like contemporary Leftists in mind.&#8221; Wilson and FDR were the first two contemporary Leftists to occupy the White House; and conservatives, in fighting back at the time against such pernicious faux-constitutional doctrines as the engorgement of the then-nascent administrative state and the Commerce Clause-driven New Deal savaging of any semblance of limitations on Congress&#8217;s Article I Section 8 legislative powers, understood the high stakes.
Alas, in 2017, it is lamentably unclear just how much fight remains within the Republican Party to push back against recalcitrant, transformative Leftism. Presidential campaign ads from 2012 may have attempted to hit then-GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan for his &#8220;social Darwinism&#8221; and &#8220;throwing granny off the cliff&#8221; budget wonkery, but in 2017 Speaker Ryan has all but raised the white flag of surrender. Somewhere, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are smiling; Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, however, are weeping.
We conservatives are in this fight to defeat the Left, which indubitably represents an existential threat to all that we consider just about a society prizing individual freedom and human flourishing. But in defeating the Left, it is imperative that we stand for something&#8212;and, specifically, that that &#8220;something&#8221; not merely be &#8220;Leftism lite.&#8221; Only a genuine, first-principles based, constitutionally-derived conservatism can save the Republic from Leftist revanchism.
<blockquote>
Only a genuine, first principles-based, constitutionally derived conservatism can save the republic from Leftist revanchism.

</blockquote>
For congressional conservatives and conservative activists all across the country, then, the immediately pressing task is clear. First, kill this bill. Second, repeal Obamacare wholesale via budget reconciliation, no matter what the Senate parliamentarian says. Third, pass incremental, consensus-based legislation to move the ball forward in liberalizing healthcare access, freeing health insurance markets, and lowering healthcare costs for more consumers. Dare Chuck Schumer and the Democrats to oppose some of these aforementioned common-sense measures.
But the first task for congressional Republicans &#8212; and for President Trump and Vice President Pence &#8212; is to stop flirting with the AHCA&#8217;s one-size-fits-all legislative conferral of positive benefits. They are all merely evincing just how thoroughly Woodrow Wilson and FDR have posthumously won their long-term con.

The Weak GOP Obamacare Replacement Is Woodrow Wilson’s Long-Term Triumph

Obamacare

Paul Ryan

Menu