The Real Threat To Our Elections Comes Not From Russia, But From Within Our Own Country

Daily Caller Editor’s note: We endeavor to bring you the top voices on current events representing a range of perspectives. Below is a column arguing that the possibility of Russian interference in the 2020 election is not a major concern. You can find a counterpoint here, where Charles Kolb argues that Russian interference is a real threat to American democracy. Long before modern Russia meddled in our 2016 presidential election, Winston Churchill – one of the 20th century’s preeminent statesmen – described the difficulty of deciphering Russian policies as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” Were Churchill with us today, he would know that the tools available to the Kremlin in this 21st century make that task far more difficult than in 1939 when he made his prescient declaration. Most important in this regard is the reality that agencies within the Russian government, including its still very effective intelligence services, are able to employ social media platforms and internet search engines, to both meddle in the affairs of other countries, including the United States, and to camouflage those efforts from detection. To evaluate what Russia has done, is doing, and will in the future attempt as part of its ongoing drive to interfere in electoral affairs of other countries, it is essential to understand one of the primary principles that drives Russia’s foreign policy – that forces outside its borders seek always to interfere in and weaken the country.  Whether such a belief is founded on fact (which sometimes it has been) or fiction, it explains how its leaders – most notably the country’s current strongman,...

Don’t Let ‘Surprise Medical Billing’ Pave The Way For ‘Medicare for All’

Daily Caller The list of problems caused or made worse by Obamacare continues to lengthen; higher health insurance premiums and loss of options for consumers top many of the lists of such ills compiled by health care experts. One of the lesser known problematic consequences of the former president’s prime legacy, however, has been thrust into both public policy and budget debates in this election year: “Surprise Medical Billing.” A “Surprise Medical Billing” is a charge for a medical procedure performed on a patient by a physician or other health care provider who happens not to be a member of the provider network covered by the patient’s insurance policy (in other words, the doctor is “out of network”). These medical procedures often are related to emergencies, in which the patient requires care but in circumstances in which he or she has no control over who actually performs the medical services. Because the physician is not “in-network” with the patient’s insurance plan, the fees for services are not covered by the insurance company, and the patient receives a bill — sometimes a very hefty bill that was not anticipated (hence, “surprise”). At its core, the problem of surprise medical billings results from the manner by which insurance companies define the “network” of health care facilities and providers which they will cover for individuals who are members of their plans.  This necessarily directs individuals covered by a company’s plan to use the facilities and providers that are “in network,” so that the insurer pays for such charges (at rates they negotiated), and not the individual consumer. Such insurance gerrymandering is not...

Licensing The American Dream

Townhall.com Having recently tackled the scourge of “assault” weapons in the Commonwealth, Virginia Democrats now have set their sights on the looming major public health threat of unlicensed art therapy. Citing the risks posed by “toxic chemicals” in paint and glue, by scissors “which have sharp edges capable of causing cuts or punctures,” and with objects like clay that can be dangerous “if thrown,” Democrats are stepping up to correct what surely was an oversight by our Founding Fathers who failed to  envision such dangerous implements in the hands of unlicensed civilians (consider the danger to have one’s skin punctured by a newly-sharpened quill pen!).  As ridiculous as licensing art therapists may sound, it is par for the course in Nanny State legislatures across the nation; often regardless of whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans. Take, for instance, that Louisiana requires a license for arranging flowers. Oh, and do not worry about being grifted by “fraudulent” fortune tellers – they’re licensed in several states, including Florida, Massachusetts, and Maryland. Even blow-drying hair requires more than 1,000 hours of training and potentially $20,000 in education and fees, before gaining the government’s stamp of approval.  But who are government bureaucrats really protecting with these insane requirements? Many of the trades regulated under occupational licensing are low-wage positions, with little risk to participants or customers. Is there actually rampant fraud and public safety concerns within these fields necessary to making the barriers to entry so prohibitive? Or, are such licensing requirements being pushed by trade groups (as was the case in Virginia) to protect their businesses from increased competition; with regulation-hungry legislators happy to be seen as the...

Bloomberg’s Ideological Fluidity Will Outlast Sanders’ Stubbornness

The Daily Caller It has been less than four years, but how many voters in 2020 could name more than two or three of the 17 Republican candidates who filled the early 2016 debate stage with now-President Donald Trump? For that matter, how many Democrat voters could rattle off the names of even half the two dozen men and women who lined up on stages just last year, jostling for speaking time to set them apart from the few who now remain viable candidates for their party’s nomination? While we occasionally still see Democratic California Rep. Eric Swallwell gracing the airwaves, many of his less telegenic colleagues who were among the original Democrat retinue are all but forgotten — other than perhaps as the answer to a sports bar trivia question. Occasionally, of course, there is the self-inflicted gaffe by a candidate that sinks their nascent primary campaign like a well-aimed torpedo. Who can forget Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s “oops” moment when he forgot the third cabinet-level post he had promised to dismantle if elected? By and large, political debates during Republican and Democrat primaries tend to serve as a useful process in winnowing the field of early contenders (which have been growing for both major parties in recent cycles); sometimes with results few would have predicted early in the process. For example, the manner by which candidate Trump serially eviscerated each of his GOP rivals during the primary debates in 2016, was little foreseen by the vast majority of Republican leaders, observers and even veteran pollsters. This cycle, it is likely that most Democrat Party operatives would not...

China’s Coronavirus Cover-Up Carries Lessons for U.S.

Townhall.com When a young Mark Zuckerberg signed his new “Facebook” project with a video game quote — “Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master” – it was unlikely he consciously considered it a warning of how a dictatorial Chinese government could medically endanger the global population. The young Zuckerberg clearly understood that information is power; power he and other social media moguls now wield.  But do they – or do people generally – even now understand or appreciate how control over the flow of information can be abused and imperil human beings in so many ways, when in the hands of unaccountable government officials?  While human rights issues associated with authoritarian regimes is (or certainly should be) a constant moral concern, there is a more practical danger with the control of information under oppressive governments. I wrote last month that the tragedy with Iran’s downing of a civilian aircraft – the result of military incompetence and a breakdown of information between military and civil authorities – was a prelude to a far greater nuclear nightmare should that country ever achieve its goal of possessing nuclear weapons. Now, we see these same mechanisms in China with the outbreak of the Coronavirus. Even in the best of circumstances, controlling the spread of a previously unknown infectious disease is difficult. It becomes nearly impossible when the disease originates within a tightly controlled, authoritarian society that is image-obsessed and highly averse to having its reputation tarnished anywhere, especially on the international stage. Suddenly, the flow of information about the disease becomes a weapon not in addressing...

Bloomberg’s Craven Apology Reveals Deep Character Flaw

The Daily Caller Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has a number of qualities that tend to impress – including business acumen and entrepreneurship – but courage of conviction is not among them. This is an omission that should seriously concern independent voters and business leaders who might be inclined to support his strengthening presidential bid. As I opined in this publication in January, Bloomberg is a candidate to be taken seriously; but now more by Democrats in the primary than by Republicans in the general election. His wealth remains mind-boggling, as does his willingness to part with it in his quest for the presidency. Mayors, congressmen and myriad other elected officials who have benefitted from his largesse over the past two decades, already are lining up as early endorsers. The most noteworthy hallmark of Bloomberg’s overall success is his well-earned reputation for success in the financial arena. Bloomberg LP is a brand known and respected around the world and made its progenitor one of the richest men in the world. Bloomberg’s rise in the political arena, while successful, has not been marked by the same degree of consistency and stability as the trajectory exhibited by his success in business. A registered Democrat long before he decided to throw his hat into the ring to succeed Rudy Giuliani as Mayor of New York, Bloomberg exhibited no angst whatsoever in switching his party affiliation from “D” to “R” then to “Independent” and now back to “D.” The ease with which Bloomberg floats from one side of the political aisle to another appears not to trouble many Democrats. To be...