POPULAR PIN-UP FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
AT&T's DirecTV has REMOVED
MY ANALYSIS; From this passage, we see that Vice -President Pences' staff was afraid that he would be asked to claim Election Fraud long before such a conclusion could be reasonably made. His Counsel Greg Jacob advised that such a claim would be improper, making a false statement without facts.
Millions of Americans believed that President Trump was telling the truth on election night—that President Trump actually had proof the election was stolen and that the ongoing counting of votes was an act of fraud. As votes were being counted in the days after the election, President Trump’s senior campaign advisors informed him that his chances of success were almost zero.
Former Trump Campaign Manager Bill Stepien testified that he had come to this conclusion by November 7th, and told President Trump: Committee Staff: What was your view on the state of the election at that point? Stepien: You know, very, very, very bleak...
Trump Campaign Senior Advisor Jason Miller testified to the Committee about this exchange: Miller: I was in the Oval Office. And at some point in the conversation Matt Oczkowski, who was the lead data person, was brought on, and I remember he delivered to the President in pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose. Committee Staff: And that was based, Mr. Miller, on Matt and the data team’s assessment of this sort of county-by-county, State-byState results as reported? Miller: Correct.
In one of the Select Committee’s hearings, former Fox News political editor Chris Stirewalt was asked what the chance President Trump had of winning the election after November 7th, when the votes were tallied and every news organization had called the race for now-President Biden. His response: “None.”
MY ANALYSIS; From this section we see that Donald Trumps claims of election fraud, made on election night and repeated time and time again, were made without any consideration of the opinion of members of his own campaign staff, or the News Media in general. He was told he was going to lose, and there was little or nothing to substantiate any avenue for victory. The Main Point is that his own staff could not bring themselves to perpetuate the fantasy world of a Trump victory.
In the weeks that followed the election, President Trump’s campaign experts and his senior Justice Department officials were informing him...no genuine evidence of fraud sufficient to change the results of the election...former Attorney General Barr testified:
And I repeatedly told the President in no uncertain terms that I did not see evidence of fraud, you know, that would have affected the outcome of the election. And, frankly, a year and a half later, I haven’t seen anything to change my mind on that.
MY ANALYSIS; From the above information, we see that all the Legal Advice he was getting, from the Justice Dept and his Leading Campaign Staffers, was that there was no evidence of the election returns being fraudulent enough to overturn the 2020 Election results. This was emphasized by the testimony of his own Attorney General William Barr, who even up to the time of the hearing had seen nothing that would alter his opinion.
I am not going to begin this regular feature by providing a definition that will no doubt bore most readers. In the future, I will define such words, but I would rather open up with a practical article.
The theme, " When does personal belief conflict with the best interests of society as a whole."
The Subject- Health Care.
Providing Health Insurance to every person residing in the U.S. and its' territories, is not an economic question. If the federal government creates a program to provide minimal guaranteed medical coverage, funding must be there to support those who cannot afford traditional private plans.
This is the Heart of the matter, and the dilemmas we must face are;
1) The responsibility of the individual who is a member of society.
2) The obligation of the governing body in society, which is a collection
of individuals.
To illustrate what I mean, here is an example. Let us say an individual decides all questions of morality will be answered from a Doctrine based upon the teachings of a given faith. Now such decisions have two distinct implications;
If society is populated by a majority of such citizens, what will be the outcome?
See pt.2 in a future issue.
ETHICS AND MORALITY- HEALTH CARE. PT 2.
I would like to emphasize something I alluded to in part 1. Too often, the health care debate gets mired in details that have little to do with the reality that must be faced. Initially, at least, HEALTH CARE BEING APPLIED UNIVERSALLY TO AN ENTIRE POPULATION OF ANY GIVEN COUNTRY IS A MORAL DECISION, NOT AN ECONOMIC ONE.
Like other state run social programs in the U.S, Universal Health Care is not designed to turn a profit. Its' goal is to provide affordable medical insurance that will not cripple an individual or families ability to provide for other basic necessities. This idea stems from the primarily 20th century concept that government has an obligation to provide for, to a certain extent, the basic needs of a portion of the population that cannot do so on its' own. However, unlike current social programs, Universal Health Care in the U.S differs from other social programs in one major aspect- ELIGIBILITY.
As it stands today in the U.S, there are three main groups that have medical insurance.
These above groups leave out a substantial portion of the population in the U.S.
This segment of society is the real reason that Universal Health Care, or "Obamacare" is being instituted. The middle class is the target group that will benefit the most, because they do not lie at either end of the financial spectrum in terms of income. Since paying health insurance premiums will be done on a sliding scale basis, all Americans will be covered in a way that does not end in financial hardship.
See pt. 3 in a future issue.
ETHICS AND MORALITY- HEALTH CARE. PT 3.
In the end, subsidized health care is not an economic issue. When we say that government has an obligation to provide all citizens with affordable medical insurance, a moral decision has been made. That does not mean that in the future such a decision will not lead to practical benefits, where the return is not in just doing what is right. I will get into that part of the equation in a future post, but for now I will stay on topic.
In the debate over Universal Health Care in the U.S, much of the rhetoric ignores the bottom line. Opponents are using objections that they wish us to believe are valid and on target, but they are nothing more than a smokescreen. They choose to criticize how the program is to be funded and administered, all the while avoiding answering the most important question; IS PROVIDING AFFORDABLE SUBSIDIZED MEDICAL INSURANCE TO AMERICANS UNABLE TO ACQUIRE IT, THROUGH PRIVATE SOURCES, A MORAL OBLIGATION THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO ALL OF ITS' CITIZENS?
The above question is often not satisfactorily answered by the critics of subsidized health care, who choose to attack the mechanics of the new law. However, the criticisms are often based on misleading, false or incomplete data. This strategy is a deliberate attempt to shift the debate away from the purpose of the program and focus it on issues that are easy to manipulate. Many times this is done by using assumptions and conclusions that are not based in reality.
( Look for part 4 in a future post.).
