Trump Says Our Schools Are “Flush with Cash!?” They’re Falling Apart! - BY STEVEN SINGER

Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------
It always surprises me when leftists can't or won't argue the topic at hand, but it shouldn't. This author wants to argue everything except the actual subject.
-----------------------------------

This post originally appeared at Common Dreams.

Donald Trump lies. (Let's see if the author can identify a lie.)

If you haven’t learned that yet, America, you’ve got four more cringe-inducing years to do so.

Even in his inaugural address, he couldn’t help but let loose a whooper about US public schools.

“Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families and good jobs for themselves,” he said. “But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists. … An education system flush with cash but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge.”

To which nearly every poor, nonwhite public school parent, student and teacher in the country replied, “What the heck did he just say now!?” (The author will now cite some schools that are run down and falling apart, but not refute the idea they're flush with cash. 

And we note for the record that each one is located in overwhelmingly liberal cities, with schools run by liberals.)

Los Angeles Unified School District routinely has broken desks and chairs, missing ceiling tiles, damaged flooring, broken sprinklers, damaged lunch tables and broken toilet paper dispensers.
(Trump's claim is that the education system is flush with cash. He did not claim that schools were properly maintained, so this is a non sequitur.)

They’re flush with cash!? (L.A. schools' budget is $7.6 billion, educating 640,000 students. That is $11,875 per student. That certainly sounds to me like L.A. schools are flush with cash. Of course, what they DO WITH THE CASH is entirely a separate issue.)

Saul Alinski's Rules For Radicals

I've heard about them and several have been quoted, but never all together.

-------------------------

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”

Trump faces lawsuit for violating Constitution two days after taking oath - by Ian Millhiser

Found here. My comments in bold.

-----------------------
Here is a somber article that tells of how much the Constitution suddenly means to the Left.

----------------------
An all-star team of lawyers, including two leading experts on presidential ethics and two of the most prominent constitutional scholars in the nation, will file a lawsuit on Monday challenging President Trump’s ongoing violation of an anti-corruption provision in the Constitution.

The suit alleges that Trump is in violation of the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits federal office holders from receiving “any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” Actually, the full quote from the Constitution is: 

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Article II, Section I of the Constitution tells us that each state shall transmit to the "Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate" the results of their electors' votes for president, "and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President..." Thus Mr. Trump has been certified by Congress to be president.

Tha author leaves out the phrase "Consent of the Congress," I suspect on purpose, because when Congress certified the electoral count, Trump's businesses were included in that certification. Trump therefore has consent! So the entire case falls apart on an incomplete quote.

Oh, and by the way, when President Obama accepted the Nobel prize and its cash payment, that was a true emolument.) 

GOD'S WORD OR MAN'S OPINION? - BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. My comments in bold.

----------------------------

Mr. Finnell receives regular attention on my blog, because he presents himself as the authoritative voice regarding matters of doctrine. Thus it is correct to hold him to a higher standard.

----------------------------

Guest sermon text "Connection" - 1/15/17

(Play Video) 

This is kind of like the Church. Severe treatment for some sins while other sins seem to get a pass. It gets interesting where we draw the line.

For Hedley Lamarr, murder, larceny, and theft are perfectly fine. But no gum.

Our judgments about what sins are too sinful keep us from understanding the heart of God for the lost. We hide in our comfort zones, churches, and circle of friends, neither touched nor touching.

Repealing ACA means losing your insurance - Facebook conversation

FB friend Scott posted this:

------------------

So, overnight, the US Senate voted on the first of a series of procedural measures to repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare".

They did this despite the fact that no agreement has been reached in either the House or Senate to put forward a replacement.

Which means the protections of the ACA that MOST Americans support -- no denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions, coverage of adult children under parents coverage -- will vanish.

This affects my family very directly: I have Chronic Lymphocitic Leukemia (CLL), a cancer of the blood stream and marrow system. Currently it has mild symptoms and doesn't require treatment, but there IS no cure, and it can and does "switch gears" genetically, and become much more aggressive. At which point expensive treatment will be required. One friend who has the disease required $300,000 in treatment in one year.

Mind you, this is not a "lifestyle choice." The disease has no strong environmental links, but is tied to genetics (mostly affecting white males of eastern European descent).

What are the odds that I'll be able to keep my current insurance once the insurance companies are told they can go back to kicking people off for "pre-existing conditions?"

I think we know the answer to that.

And that is just the half of it. My wife has her own pre-existing health issues which are her business, so I will not discuss them here.

The Republicans have said that they would insure that protections for those with pre-existing conditions continued, but last night they rejected amendments to the budget measure which would have stipulated that those protections continue.

Rep. Dan Newhouse, as one of your constituents, I am hoping that you take note of this and do the right thing when the measure hits the US House. I understand that the Republicans are determined to eliminate the ACA and while I oppose that, there was a promise made that the key protections that thousands of your constituents depend on, would be safeguarded. No repeal until a replacement is agreed upon.

Me The pre-existing exclusion issue only applied to uninsured people.

Like it our not, ours is indeed a diverse society - By John Heilman

First Jack Levitt's letter, the subject of Mr. Heilman's letter:

The Three Big Reasons Republicans Can’t Replace Obamacare - Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold.

--------------------

Did you know that Obamacare is so important, so successful, so needed that it cannot be replaced, except by "single payer?" That's what Dr. Reich believes.

----------------------
Republicans are preparing to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and have promised to replace it with something that doesn’t leave more than 20 million Americans stranded without health insurance. (we note for the record that the uninsured rate is at 9.1%, which means 29 million Americans are still without coverage. Apparently Dr. Reich is untroubled by the fact that Obamacare did not deliver on its promises, that in fact premiums are going up by an average of 24.92%, wait times are increasing, doctors are quitting, and insurers are leaving the exchanges. Republicans don't need to repeal Obamacare, it's going to collapse all by itself.)

How to avoid the need for making an argument

I am a fairly regular contributor to online discussions and have written a substantial number of letters to the editor. I perceive myself to be a pretty logical thinker, and I endeavor to analyze and rebut the ideas of my opponents.I find it particularly enjoyable to engage a person who disagrees in a considered, thoughtful way. The give and take is intellectually stimulating.

The 15 Warnings Signs of Impending Tyranny - Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------

It's amazing to me how Dr. Reich can be so blinded by ideology that he cannot see anything except his own talking points. In this article he makes astounding claims about a tyranny that Trump will supposedly impose. The fact that there is no possibility of the kind of tyranny Reich envisions does not deter him.

After each point, I will link to an Obama example of the same thing. So would that make Obama a tyrant as well?
---------------------------

Year's top news filled with division - and no middle ground - by Adam Geller

Found here. My comments in bold.


Fed up with Europe's union across borders? Reject it. Disgusted with the U.S. political establishment? Can it.

The news in 2016 was filled with battles over culture and territory that exposed divisions far deeper than many realized. But people confronting those divides repeatedly rejected the prospect of middle-ground solutions and the institutions put in place to deliver them. (What "middle ground solutions?" What institutions deliver those solutions? What is the author talking about?)

While the headlines told many different stories, the thread connecting much of the news was a decisive torching of moderation, no matter how uncertain the consequences. (This is supposed to be a news story, but all we are getting is vague references to a moderate middle way that has no basis in reality. In fact, no one has engaged in a "torching of moderation." There is no such thing as moderation. In political circles, a "moderate" is simply someone who goes wherever the prevailing public opinion is going.

The author is inventing a scenario, implying his disapproval of those who have rejected some sort of middle road of reason, but has yet to document any of these claims.)