Saw the Comrade with Elie Wiesel at the Holocaust Museum this morning. The Comrade gave a speech. Just a few notes on that.
Firat, he talks about hatred and persecution -- apparently referring to the Jews during the Holocaust. It doesn't seem to strike the Comrade that he uses the same tactics as Hitler's propaganda minister, Goebbels, as he [the Comrade] attacks the rich, or apparently anyone who makes a living and doesn't support marxism.
If you're at all familiar with Nazi propaganda, you kow that the Nazis blamed the runaway inflation and general economic failure on the Jews, who the Nazis claimed owned all the weath and were manipulating prices, trade, etc. The Comrade blames George Bush and Wall Street, and wants to punish anyone who makes a decent living for their success.
The Comrade also has announced that if he can't get any legislation through congress, he will continue to work around it, compelling his minions in the executive branch to enact his stupid and destructive policies without congressional review and approval. Hey, ya know what? Hitler had the SS -- Storm Troopers -- to take care of all that.
You can't shove stuff down peoples' throats, Comrade, and expect them to sit and take it. Your only other option to working with congress is to recruit your own little cadre of Storm Troopers. And apparently he did already try this, with Acorn. Remnants of Acorn live on under different names, and apparently still with federal funding. But the Comrade also has Trumpka and the unions -- UAW, SEIU, etc. etc. These thugs have proven that they aren't above violence.
Most recently, and rahter pathetically, the Comrade has trid to "organize" the useless, non-productive, and the homeless into some kind of political action arm -- the Occupy Wall Street types, the OWies.
Laughable, though, because the OWies are people who apparently can't or won't act to support even themselves. They've only served as litter and detritus on the public thoroughfares.
At the Holocaust Museum, the Comrade also spoke about his tireless efforts to do something about Iran and the fanatic muslim threat to Israel.
Well, the Comrade did what he could to support the "Arab Spring," a movement co-opted by the fantatic Muslim Brotherhood, and he handed the "Atomic Iran" issue over to the U.N. Yup, working tirelessly.
The amazing thing is that the Comrade is so blind and self-serving that he doesn't recognize that he's following the path of just about every other authoritarian dictator in human history.
Either he simply doesn't know any history, doesn't understand it, or is so power-hungry he just ignores it.
The Founding Fathers devised the US Constitution to stop people like the Comrade. So if the Comrade feels constrained by and in conflict with it -- that's a very useful hint that he's way over-reaching on his power trip.
Remember in November, and...
Save the Republic.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Monday, April 23, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Taking the capital out of capitalism
It's called "capitalism" for a reason. It operates on glorious excess -- profit.
See, that's when you have a little more than you need and you use that to expand your productivity.
"Capital" is the excess.
Like.... suppose you grow potatoes. You grow, say, 10 acres of potatoes. You keep the potatoes from five acres to feed yourself and family. You sell four acres worth to cover your operating expenses, pay your workers, etc. You keep one acre to use to seed the field next year.
That one acre is your profit. You avoid consuming it and protect it even if it means cutting back a little bit now.
Because that one acre is what you need to plant next year.
That's your future. That ensures that you have a future.
The Comrade first went after the banks -- but destroying the banks was a process already well underway. And Dudd-Fudd legislation didn't help. Those regulations were crafted by Thomas Dodd and Barney Frank, the two apparently most economically illiterate people to ever walk the halls of congress, and have only made it more impossible for banks to lend.
And it makes me laugh when people (mostly democrats and marxists) claim that it was "de-regulation" that caused the housing bubble, bank collapse, etc. The financial industry wasn't "de-regulated" at all. Regulations changed -- they were not eliminated -- and the changes apparently were destructive -- and no doubt done all for our own "good."
At any rate, so the Comrade first nationalized the banks and put them under an even bigger pile of suffocating regulations. And banks tradtionally been a primary source of capital for businesses and producers of all kinds in the US free enterprise system.
So they're been neutalized pretty much.
The disater in housing sucked any capital out of middle class individual would-be or wanna-be investors, or simply people who had a dream.
So what's left? Who has any seed corn -- or capital -- left to jumpstart this economy?
Well, some corporations and Wall Street investors.
How do you wrench the capital from their clammy hands?
TAX THE RICH.
And thus ensure that the USA, flat on its back, will never rise again. The class warfare aspect of "tax the rich" is just an added bonus -- gives the more ignorant and psychotically resentful among the population a reason to vote for socialism.
And the Comrade is plainly and insultingly full of shit with his feeble efforts to attach the names of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan to any of his marxist nihilist schemes. It's just insulting.
Save the Republic.
See, that's when you have a little more than you need and you use that to expand your productivity.
"Capital" is the excess.
Like.... suppose you grow potatoes. You grow, say, 10 acres of potatoes. You keep the potatoes from five acres to feed yourself and family. You sell four acres worth to cover your operating expenses, pay your workers, etc. You keep one acre to use to seed the field next year.
That one acre is your profit. You avoid consuming it and protect it even if it means cutting back a little bit now.
Because that one acre is what you need to plant next year.
That's your future. That ensures that you have a future.
The Comrade first went after the banks -- but destroying the banks was a process already well underway. And Dudd-Fudd legislation didn't help. Those regulations were crafted by Thomas Dodd and Barney Frank, the two apparently most economically illiterate people to ever walk the halls of congress, and have only made it more impossible for banks to lend.
And it makes me laugh when people (mostly democrats and marxists) claim that it was "de-regulation" that caused the housing bubble, bank collapse, etc. The financial industry wasn't "de-regulated" at all. Regulations changed -- they were not eliminated -- and the changes apparently were destructive -- and no doubt done all for our own "good."
At any rate, so the Comrade first nationalized the banks and put them under an even bigger pile of suffocating regulations. And banks tradtionally been a primary source of capital for businesses and producers of all kinds in the US free enterprise system.
So they're been neutalized pretty much.
The disater in housing sucked any capital out of middle class individual would-be or wanna-be investors, or simply people who had a dream.
So what's left? Who has any seed corn -- or capital -- left to jumpstart this economy?
Well, some corporations and Wall Street investors.
How do you wrench the capital from their clammy hands?
TAX THE RICH.
And thus ensure that the USA, flat on its back, will never rise again. The class warfare aspect of "tax the rich" is just an added bonus -- gives the more ignorant and psychotically resentful among the population a reason to vote for socialism.
And the Comrade is plainly and insultingly full of shit with his feeble efforts to attach the names of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan to any of his marxist nihilist schemes. It's just insulting.
Save the Republic.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Social Darwinism vs. historical determinism
See, the Comrade thinks if he tosses around some multisyllabic words he picked up at Harvard, that no one will know what he's talking about. He often disguises his marxist agenda by couching it in vocabularly words that have a positive sound -- or describes it in ways that make it sound initimidating and inevitable. Marx himself did the same thing.
The other day the Comrade said we have a clear choice between "social Darwinism" and something else -- which is basically marxist communism, but I think he described it as "lilies that bloom year 'round" or something like that.
But, ooh kids, "social Darwinism." That sounds nasty, huh? It's basically survival of the fittest. And being that Darwin's theory of evolution is based on the premise that those who survive are those who are best suited to thrive in their environments, there's really no way we can get away from social Darwinism, is there?
I mean, even if the Comrade could construct "an economy built to last," apparently a communist one since that seems to be what he's going for, the people who will thrive in that kind of an environment will be the ones who learn how to manipulate that system most effectively. And what would that require? Hmmm, let's see.
I can't think of any other way to thrive in the kind of world the Comrade is "fundamentally transforming" this nation into.
Because apparently, under the Comrade's diktats, anyone who actually produces something or provides a service for pay and hopes to keep their profits is an evil "fat cat" stealing the "wealth" from those who sit on their butts and do nothing. (Or not "nothing." It seems OK by the Comrade to recruit them to go terrorize bankers every now and then.)
"Historical determinism" means basically that history, or human experience, moves inevitably toward a single outcome. That is, history sort of moves by itself, and we're all caught up in the wave. Nothing we can do about it. It's not our fault.
Does this explain the White House's "it's not my fault" attitude regarding its own failures?
Anyway, marxism teaches historical determinism. According to Marx, all human experience on the planet is controlled by "dialectics," a concept actually developed by a guy named Hegel, whose work is pretty much unintelligible. This is how dialectics works: You say "yes." Which triggers me saying "no." We have a fight. This happens over and over again. And that is what moves history.
Marx believed he could look into a crystal ball and see where all these dialectic "swings of the pendulum" from yes to no to conflict would end up. According to Marx, the bougeois said "yes." The working class said "no." The classes would be in continual conflict that would result in revolution and the overthrow of the bourgeois class. When the workers eventually -- and inevitably -- take over, Marx happily predicted that the result would be a communist utopia.
Ever since, marxists like the Comrade have done everything they could to foster and encourage class warfare to trigger the revolution and bring on utopia.
Do you believe this? Is that how history works?
I watched a TV show over the weekend that claimed that people like Da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, too, I guess, were probably people who had had some kind of communication with extraterrestrial aliens. After all, there are two years of Da Vinci's life that are not accounted for. The aliens gave him and the others lots of smarts and insight so that these individuals could do and make things that would redirect history.
To me, the alien theory makes about as much sense as Marx's dialectics.
And maybe extraterrestrials would be easier to live with than IRS agents and/or other federal bureaucrats. At least the aliens are supposed to be intelligent.
Save the Republic.
The other day the Comrade said we have a clear choice between "social Darwinism" and something else -- which is basically marxist communism, but I think he described it as "lilies that bloom year 'round" or something like that.
But, ooh kids, "social Darwinism." That sounds nasty, huh? It's basically survival of the fittest. And being that Darwin's theory of evolution is based on the premise that those who survive are those who are best suited to thrive in their environments, there's really no way we can get away from social Darwinism, is there?
I mean, even if the Comrade could construct "an economy built to last," apparently a communist one since that seems to be what he's going for, the people who will thrive in that kind of an environment will be the ones who learn how to manipulate that system most effectively. And what would that require? Hmmm, let's see.
- Self-inficted wounds that allow you to collect disability?
- A lot of brown-nosing of "the powers that be," who, by the way, control every aspect of the economy?
- Failure/refusal to do anything for your own self, proving that you are the most incompetent and therefore have the greatest "need?"
- Getting a job with a union or for the feds?
- Winning the loltery
I can't think of any other way to thrive in the kind of world the Comrade is "fundamentally transforming" this nation into.
Because apparently, under the Comrade's diktats, anyone who actually produces something or provides a service for pay and hopes to keep their profits is an evil "fat cat" stealing the "wealth" from those who sit on their butts and do nothing. (Or not "nothing." It seems OK by the Comrade to recruit them to go terrorize bankers every now and then.)
"Historical determinism" means basically that history, or human experience, moves inevitably toward a single outcome. That is, history sort of moves by itself, and we're all caught up in the wave. Nothing we can do about it. It's not our fault.
Does this explain the White House's "it's not my fault" attitude regarding its own failures?
Anyway, marxism teaches historical determinism. According to Marx, all human experience on the planet is controlled by "dialectics," a concept actually developed by a guy named Hegel, whose work is pretty much unintelligible. This is how dialectics works: You say "yes." Which triggers me saying "no." We have a fight. This happens over and over again. And that is what moves history.
Marx believed he could look into a crystal ball and see where all these dialectic "swings of the pendulum" from yes to no to conflict would end up. According to Marx, the bougeois said "yes." The working class said "no." The classes would be in continual conflict that would result in revolution and the overthrow of the bourgeois class. When the workers eventually -- and inevitably -- take over, Marx happily predicted that the result would be a communist utopia.
Ever since, marxists like the Comrade have done everything they could to foster and encourage class warfare to trigger the revolution and bring on utopia.
Do you believe this? Is that how history works?
I watched a TV show over the weekend that claimed that people like Da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, too, I guess, were probably people who had had some kind of communication with extraterrestrial aliens. After all, there are two years of Da Vinci's life that are not accounted for. The aliens gave him and the others lots of smarts and insight so that these individuals could do and make things that would redirect history.
To me, the alien theory makes about as much sense as Marx's dialectics.
And maybe extraterrestrials would be easier to live with than IRS agents and/or other federal bureaucrats. At least the aliens are supposed to be intelligent.
Save the Republic.
The future of energy
Neil Cavuto is one of my favorite TV news people. On one show last week, he ran a brief clip of Senator Dick(head) Durbin, (d-IL), telling people that all the tornados and similar bad weather lately should spur us all to buy Chevy Volts. Because all the tornados, etc., are due to us burning fossil fuels, you see.
Cavuto was totally ticked off. He didn't joke, as he usually does. He just said something to the effect that Durbin's comment was probably one of the stupidest things he'd ever heard, and he wondered how blockheads like Durbin get elected. A question not far from my own mind.
Hey, Neil, Durbin's from Illinois, like Saul Alinsky, Ram Emanual, David Axelrod, Richard Speck and the Comrade. 'Nuff said?
Honestly, I'll take this one step further and ask: Why is wind and solar power -- and shall we add algae? -- supposed to be the wave of the future?
Why? Because Al Gore said so. Al Gore said lots and lots of things that are similar loads of crap. Since that British "scientist" admitted that his dog ate the documentation behind his gloomy-crytal-ball-future-climate-computer-model, there's absolutely nothing to back up claims that 1.) "global warming" or "climate change" are driven by human action, and; 2.) that "global warming" or "climate change" even exists. Period.
The weather changes all the time. Does climate? Well, the earth has entertained a couple ice ages and stuff like that. But if anything like that is happening now, it isn't reflected in the hard data collected around the world over the last couple of decades. There's been periods of goofy weather. Climate remains about the same.
The most recent geological surveys show that the earth -- and particularly North America -- has vast untapped resouces of oil and natural gas, both fossil fuels, as well as coal. Matter of fact, if you take a spin down the Pennsylvania Turnpike in western Pennsylvania, you seem to be driving between cliffs of coal, which are covered over with a kind of chicken wire to prevent it raining down on your head. The air even smells like a coal bin. Drive through Kentucky and parts of Tennessee, you'll see huge coal ledges outcropping from the soil along every hillside.
But solar and wind represent the future of energy?
In what universe?
Just the contrary, due to their unreliability and inefficiency, wind and solar were long ago replaced by fossil fuels whenever and wherever that was possible.
And as far as electric cars go (or actually don't go), if they run on electricity, in the USA they're coal-powered, aren't they to a very large extent? Until the geniuses at GM figure out some wind turbine beany type of arrangement, or solar panels, that can be fixed to the roof and geared somehow to run reliably to provide power for long distance transportation.
Wind and solar don't work very well. They chew up the landscape. They're ugly and often dangerous. They're inefficient and way to expensive compared to fossil fuels.
But the Comrade's vision of the future seems to be not much more than a kind of blown out, bomb-damaged kind of version of some ancient past. Either that or I suppose we could construct new homes and commercial buildings at least partly underground, which in most of the USA, remains a pretty constant 54 degrees or so. And hey, if we lived underground, we could probably dig and burn as much coal as we like and the feds will never know.
Sound like a plan?
Save the Republic.
Cavuto was totally ticked off. He didn't joke, as he usually does. He just said something to the effect that Durbin's comment was probably one of the stupidest things he'd ever heard, and he wondered how blockheads like Durbin get elected. A question not far from my own mind.
Hey, Neil, Durbin's from Illinois, like Saul Alinsky, Ram Emanual, David Axelrod, Richard Speck and the Comrade. 'Nuff said?
Honestly, I'll take this one step further and ask: Why is wind and solar power -- and shall we add algae? -- supposed to be the wave of the future?
Why? Because Al Gore said so. Al Gore said lots and lots of things that are similar loads of crap. Since that British "scientist" admitted that his dog ate the documentation behind his gloomy-crytal-ball-future-climate-computer-model, there's absolutely nothing to back up claims that 1.) "global warming" or "climate change" are driven by human action, and; 2.) that "global warming" or "climate change" even exists. Period.
The weather changes all the time. Does climate? Well, the earth has entertained a couple ice ages and stuff like that. But if anything like that is happening now, it isn't reflected in the hard data collected around the world over the last couple of decades. There's been periods of goofy weather. Climate remains about the same.
The most recent geological surveys show that the earth -- and particularly North America -- has vast untapped resouces of oil and natural gas, both fossil fuels, as well as coal. Matter of fact, if you take a spin down the Pennsylvania Turnpike in western Pennsylvania, you seem to be driving between cliffs of coal, which are covered over with a kind of chicken wire to prevent it raining down on your head. The air even smells like a coal bin. Drive through Kentucky and parts of Tennessee, you'll see huge coal ledges outcropping from the soil along every hillside.
But solar and wind represent the future of energy?
In what universe?
Just the contrary, due to their unreliability and inefficiency, wind and solar were long ago replaced by fossil fuels whenever and wherever that was possible.
And as far as electric cars go (or actually don't go), if they run on electricity, in the USA they're coal-powered, aren't they to a very large extent? Until the geniuses at GM figure out some wind turbine beany type of arrangement, or solar panels, that can be fixed to the roof and geared somehow to run reliably to provide power for long distance transportation.
Wind and solar don't work very well. They chew up the landscape. They're ugly and often dangerous. They're inefficient and way to expensive compared to fossil fuels.
But the Comrade's vision of the future seems to be not much more than a kind of blown out, bomb-damaged kind of version of some ancient past. Either that or I suppose we could construct new homes and commercial buildings at least partly underground, which in most of the USA, remains a pretty constant 54 degrees or so. And hey, if we lived underground, we could probably dig and burn as much coal as we like and the feds will never know.
Sound like a plan?
Save the Republic.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Close, but no coronation
Well, I had a few details wrong in the last blog, though the main points were all correct.
It was three judges in Texas who asked Eric Holder to explain the policy of the executive branch regarding the judicial -- asking for a 3-page response outlining exactly why it is that the judicial branch can and has struck down legislation that violates the strictures of the Constitution.
FYI, the three branches of government, Congress, the Supremes, and the White House, have equal authority. None of them rules the other, though they each have the power to undo what the other does. The framers set up the government this way so that it would likely destroy itself long before it destroyed the nation as a whole -- and WE, THE PEOPLE, would have time to make a few of our own corrections before the situation got too desperate.
Apparently Holder complied with the Texans' demands -- I mean you can buy academic papers about this online -- admitting that the Comrade was simply strutting his marxist stuff and pretending to be a dictator for the benefit of a bunch of editors and publishers from the AP wire.
Curiously enough, the Comrade himself made a feeble effort to take back his attack on the Supreme Court. Unusual for him to admit to any errors in judgment. Apparently his ego can't stand to be corrected.
Showed his hand, huh? His blind ambition for absolute power and and his contempt for the United States showing through.
He's wise to wait until if and when he wins a second term to put that kind of stuff on display. Then, at least in his own mind, he can do whatever he damn pleases with the nation because he won't have to pay any attention to voters at all. Not lilke he has so far.
On Fox yesterday, Judge Napolitano noted that the Comrade is moving dangerously close to seizing dictatorial power. Like... hmmm... Napolean, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed.
Anyone who votes for the Comrade in November very likely has masochistic tendencies or suffers from Stockholm Syndrome. That's pretty clear.
Save the Republic.
It was three judges in Texas who asked Eric Holder to explain the policy of the executive branch regarding the judicial -- asking for a 3-page response outlining exactly why it is that the judicial branch can and has struck down legislation that violates the strictures of the Constitution.
FYI, the three branches of government, Congress, the Supremes, and the White House, have equal authority. None of them rules the other, though they each have the power to undo what the other does. The framers set up the government this way so that it would likely destroy itself long before it destroyed the nation as a whole -- and WE, THE PEOPLE, would have time to make a few of our own corrections before the situation got too desperate.
Apparently Holder complied with the Texans' demands -- I mean you can buy academic papers about this online -- admitting that the Comrade was simply strutting his marxist stuff and pretending to be a dictator for the benefit of a bunch of editors and publishers from the AP wire.
Curiously enough, the Comrade himself made a feeble effort to take back his attack on the Supreme Court. Unusual for him to admit to any errors in judgment. Apparently his ego can't stand to be corrected.
Showed his hand, huh? His blind ambition for absolute power and and his contempt for the United States showing through.
He's wise to wait until if and when he wins a second term to put that kind of stuff on display. Then, at least in his own mind, he can do whatever he damn pleases with the nation because he won't have to pay any attention to voters at all. Not lilke he has so far.
On Fox yesterday, Judge Napolitano noted that the Comrade is moving dangerously close to seizing dictatorial power. Like... hmmm... Napolean, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed.
Anyone who votes for the Comrade in November very likely has masochistic tendencies or suffers from Stockholm Syndrome. That's pretty clear.
Save the Republic.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
White House assaults the Supreme Court
Let me tell you, the Comrade puts Hitler to shame in terms of sheer audacity, as well as powerlust.
That's not name-calling or exaggeration. Goebbels, one of Hitler's peeps, crafted what's called "Big Lie" propaganda -- something the Comrade practices routinely. The Comrade has invented a new twist on it -- tell some monumental Big Lie, or launch some huge assault on the nation, then accuse your opponents of exactly the same thing.
For example, apparently the Comrade observed the rather pathetic showing the pro-socialist attorney put forth in the Supreme Court to attempt to defend socialized medicine. It was sort of like, "Well, some people like socialized medicine." And let me have another sip of water.
You know, as anyone who even had a slight brush with law school knows, or even people who just occasionally watch "Law & Order" or TruTV (formerly Court TV), when you argue a case, you have to introduce some sort of structured and credible logic into your statements.
There is no logic in the socialized medicine bill, hence, no argument to support it. Just an over-priced guy standing there with egg all over his face. He must get paid an awful lot to play whipping boy for the White House marxists.
Realizing that socialized medicine is unconstitutional and actually totally destructive to the United States government, the Comrade has made a move that I first laughed at. I mean, I thought the TV news guy was joking. But no, it's true. Jay Carneybarker confirms it.
The Comrade wants a statement from Eric Holder (there's a crack attorney, or an attorney so addle-brained you suspect he's on crack) about whether or not the "unelected" Supreme Court can strike down a law that was passed by a "majority."
I still have coffee shooting out my nose. But the thing is -- this is serious. I mean, the Comrade really did this. It's really stunning. It makes the Reichstag fire look bumbling and crude.
And Comrade Butthead supposedly taught consitutional law? No doubt he worked at one of those schools that sends out email blasts about "earning your degree in six weeks." I hope his one-time students are demanding a refund.
Apparently the Comrade has never read the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court judges are not elected. Hey, 'Rad, remember -- you even got to appoint a few yourself. Or did you get in the head with a golf ball and it just all left your mind?
Then he's also claiming that the Supreme Court can't strike down legislation. Well, so he doesn't know any American history, either. But we already knew that. Seems to me that it's the JOB of the Supreme Court to strike down legislation -- or even crazy-ass schemes hatched in the White House -- that violates the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND -- THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
The Supremes aren't "making new law" as the term "judicial activism" suggests. That might apply if they actually went through the socialized medicine bill and determined what parts of it should stand -- if they rewrote the bill, in other words. And the judges don't seem inclined to do that.
And Congress can change the Constitution -- there's a procedure for that -- which was in no way part of the sausage-making process that produced the socialized medicine bill.
Yeah -- this is the straw that broke the camel's back... that the socialized medicine bill was passed by a "democratic majority."
Only democrats voted for it, and only after Pelosi, Reid, and Max Baucus bought off congressional whore Mary Landrieu ("It wasn't $100 billion, it was $500 billion she crowed loudly on the floor of the Senate, with bed-hair, and sucking on a post-coitus cigarette), and bribing and extorting people from Nebraska (Cornhusker kickback) and Florida to get their votes. God only knows what they did to Joe Lieberman -- that was behind closed doors. We can only imagine. Apparently he's not going to run again.
This is a "democratic" process? Only if you accept mafia tactics as legitimate persuasive tools. And perhaps people do, in Iran or Venezuela, but it doesn't work well in the United States.
WHAT A CROCK OF B.S. THIS IS. And it just stinks of utter desperation. Did the Comrade really believe the USA was ripe for his marxist takeover? Poor fool.
But go ahead, Comrade -- take on the Supreme Court. He's all kinda broody and hurt that they don't love him the way Tatiana Ali and Hugo Chavez do. That's very cute. What next? Get your ragtail OWies out there to stink up the Mall and insult us all by claiming to "represent" us? Put on some kind of show that convinces no one but Chris Mathews and the other lamebrains at MSNBC?
Go ahead. You'e only assuring a monumental landslide for Republicans in November.
And I just can't wait.
Save the Republic.
That's not name-calling or exaggeration. Goebbels, one of Hitler's peeps, crafted what's called "Big Lie" propaganda -- something the Comrade practices routinely. The Comrade has invented a new twist on it -- tell some monumental Big Lie, or launch some huge assault on the nation, then accuse your opponents of exactly the same thing.
For example, apparently the Comrade observed the rather pathetic showing the pro-socialist attorney put forth in the Supreme Court to attempt to defend socialized medicine. It was sort of like, "Well, some people like socialized medicine." And let me have another sip of water.
You know, as anyone who even had a slight brush with law school knows, or even people who just occasionally watch "Law & Order" or TruTV (formerly Court TV), when you argue a case, you have to introduce some sort of structured and credible logic into your statements.
There is no logic in the socialized medicine bill, hence, no argument to support it. Just an over-priced guy standing there with egg all over his face. He must get paid an awful lot to play whipping boy for the White House marxists.
Realizing that socialized medicine is unconstitutional and actually totally destructive to the United States government, the Comrade has made a move that I first laughed at. I mean, I thought the TV news guy was joking. But no, it's true. Jay Carneybarker confirms it.
The Comrade wants a statement from Eric Holder (there's a crack attorney, or an attorney so addle-brained you suspect he's on crack) about whether or not the "unelected" Supreme Court can strike down a law that was passed by a "majority."
I still have coffee shooting out my nose. But the thing is -- this is serious. I mean, the Comrade really did this. It's really stunning. It makes the Reichstag fire look bumbling and crude.
And Comrade Butthead supposedly taught consitutional law? No doubt he worked at one of those schools that sends out email blasts about "earning your degree in six weeks." I hope his one-time students are demanding a refund.
Apparently the Comrade has never read the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court judges are not elected. Hey, 'Rad, remember -- you even got to appoint a few yourself. Or did you get in the head with a golf ball and it just all left your mind?
Then he's also claiming that the Supreme Court can't strike down legislation. Well, so he doesn't know any American history, either. But we already knew that. Seems to me that it's the JOB of the Supreme Court to strike down legislation -- or even crazy-ass schemes hatched in the White House -- that violates the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND -- THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
The Supremes aren't "making new law" as the term "judicial activism" suggests. That might apply if they actually went through the socialized medicine bill and determined what parts of it should stand -- if they rewrote the bill, in other words. And the judges don't seem inclined to do that.
And Congress can change the Constitution -- there's a procedure for that -- which was in no way part of the sausage-making process that produced the socialized medicine bill.
Yeah -- this is the straw that broke the camel's back... that the socialized medicine bill was passed by a "democratic majority."
Only democrats voted for it, and only after Pelosi, Reid, and Max Baucus bought off congressional whore Mary Landrieu ("It wasn't $100 billion, it was $500 billion she crowed loudly on the floor of the Senate, with bed-hair, and sucking on a post-coitus cigarette), and bribing and extorting people from Nebraska (Cornhusker kickback) and Florida to get their votes. God only knows what they did to Joe Lieberman -- that was behind closed doors. We can only imagine. Apparently he's not going to run again.
This is a "democratic" process? Only if you accept mafia tactics as legitimate persuasive tools. And perhaps people do, in Iran or Venezuela, but it doesn't work well in the United States.
WHAT A CROCK OF B.S. THIS IS. And it just stinks of utter desperation. Did the Comrade really believe the USA was ripe for his marxist takeover? Poor fool.
But go ahead, Comrade -- take on the Supreme Court. He's all kinda broody and hurt that they don't love him the way Tatiana Ali and Hugo Chavez do. That's very cute. What next? Get your ragtail OWies out there to stink up the Mall and insult us all by claiming to "represent" us? Put on some kind of show that convinces no one but Chris Mathews and the other lamebrains at MSNBC?
Go ahead. You'e only assuring a monumental landslide for Republicans in November.
And I just can't wait.
Save the Republic.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
A bunch more bad choices from the executive branch
Apparently the EPA has raised the bar so high on building coal-powered electrical plants that none will be etablished any time soon. Too bad, because at the same time, the EPA is forcing the shutdown of lots of existing coal-powered electrical plants.
Oh dear. Where, oh, where will we find the energy to propel our little Chevy Volts?
In addition, it seems that while the Comrade was in some foreign country -- not sure where he is, but do hope he stays there -- he got caught promising Russia's Medvedev that he will sell out US missile defense just as soon as he [the Comrade] wins the November election. The Comrade says he'll have "more flexibility" after the election.
Yeah, up until then, he's got to keep his lies consistent and his false facade in place in order to get people to vote for him. If they knew the truth....
Apparently the Comrade is licking his chops at the thought of a lame duck term, when he'll be able to order all US troops back home to stand guard over all of us unruly citizens while he [the Comrade] shoves even more marxist crap down our throats. See, he won't have to worry about being re-elected. Like his marxist bud, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, perhaps the Comrade will somehow even "persuade" congress to suspend all elections entirely and just obey his god-like diktats.
He really is a hideous person, know what I mean? I don't find him at all charming or in any way attractive. And I must question the perception and judgment of anyone who does.
So just as soon as donkeys fly -- that is, after the Comrade wins a second term -- we can look forward to being rendered entirely defenselss, just a bunch of happy slaves, sittin' on the porch of an evening (after sundown, after picking cotton all day), strumming our banjos and singing the praises of Ol' Marse Barry.
In your dreams, buddy. In your dreams. We know you now. And we arent' all as stupid as you are.
Save the Republic.
Oh dear. Where, oh, where will we find the energy to propel our little Chevy Volts?
In addition, it seems that while the Comrade was in some foreign country -- not sure where he is, but do hope he stays there -- he got caught promising Russia's Medvedev that he will sell out US missile defense just as soon as he [the Comrade] wins the November election. The Comrade says he'll have "more flexibility" after the election.
Yeah, up until then, he's got to keep his lies consistent and his false facade in place in order to get people to vote for him. If they knew the truth....
Apparently the Comrade is licking his chops at the thought of a lame duck term, when he'll be able to order all US troops back home to stand guard over all of us unruly citizens while he [the Comrade] shoves even more marxist crap down our throats. See, he won't have to worry about being re-elected. Like his marxist bud, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, perhaps the Comrade will somehow even "persuade" congress to suspend all elections entirely and just obey his god-like diktats.
He really is a hideous person, know what I mean? I don't find him at all charming or in any way attractive. And I must question the perception and judgment of anyone who does.
So just as soon as donkeys fly -- that is, after the Comrade wins a second term -- we can look forward to being rendered entirely defenselss, just a bunch of happy slaves, sittin' on the porch of an evening (after sundown, after picking cotton all day), strumming our banjos and singing the praises of Ol' Marse Barry.
In your dreams, buddy. In your dreams. We know you now. And we arent' all as stupid as you are.
Save the Republic.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Loo at the White House
This may end up being a rather international blog.
Start with a guy name Richard or Robert Loo, who replaced Bill Daley at the White House. He was on "Fox Sunday" with Chris Wallace this morning. Anyone know what a "loo" is in England? Same as a "W.C.," which stands for "water closet," perhaps the ultimate Victorian euphemism for "toilet."
So, anyway, Mr. Loo now is speaking on behalf of the Comrade. How appropriate.
Chris Wallace asked him where the "right" to birth control pills comes from, since it's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. No doubt a careless oversight on Madison's part. They were all men anyway, right?
Mr. Loo said this "right" comes from the socialized medicine bill.
We've covered this before. No government can invent a human right. Rights come from the Creator, not from the Comrade, Marx, Lenin, or any of his other heroes. So that's a stupid and useless comment, isn't it? Figures it comes from the White House Loo. It's probably written on the wall there, along with the phone numbers for a few congressional whores, like Nelson or Landrieu.
(In fact, not even the government has "rights." No, the government has "powers." Granted to it by citizens with "rights." Get it?)
So then Chris Wallace asked Mr. Loo, since under the Comrade's silly fix, his back-step in trying to claim authority over the Catholic God, the Catholic church will not have to be dispensing birth control and "morning after" pills to its employees. But it's insurance carrier is compelled to.
Isn't this just cost-shifting? Wallace asked. That is to say, won't the Catholic church still be paying for the pills through its insurance premiums?
Mr. Loo says no, because birth control pills are free.
(OK, about this time I'm rolling on the floor laughing, with coffee shooting out my nose. This is like an interview with Foster Brooks, remember, the comic who acted drunk all the time?)
No, really, Mr. Loo insists, if you figure in the cost of birth control pills into the cost of women's overall health care, they don't cost anything.
At this point, even Chris Wallace had coffee shooting out his nose, though the camera panned away from him, no doubt to preseve some of Mr. Loo's floundering dignity.
So in addition to the English "loo" thing, here's the other international part:
I was in Italy many moons ago. At the time, Italy had hyper inflation. The money was so worthless, when you bought something small, like a newspaper, they wouldn't give you change in lire. They'd give you a piece of candy, which was actually worth more and, let's face it, tasted better.
So here's a solution the Comrade might consider, since birth control pills really are "free." Get the drug stores to dispense them. Like, if you go to a drug store for, say, a bottle of fish oil tablets, and you give the clerk, say, a $10.00 bill, with maybe $1.50 change due back... Why not just have the drug store give you your change in birth control pills? Since they're "free," the drug stores won't be losing any money, right? And neither the Catholic church nor the insurance companies will have to deal with the issue at all.
This even works for men. If they buy condoms or viagra or something, they can get their change in birth control pills that they can pass along to their partners. Knda like the way junkies swap food stamps around. See how well that all works? Even for the black market. Everyone wins! And no one has to take any responsibility for anything.
And boy, those birth control farmers sure better step up production. I think demand is going to go through the roof. We may not be able to find enough of them growing "free" in the wild anymore. And put up big nets, so next time it rains birth control pills, we won't lose too many.
Save the Republic.
Start with a guy name Richard or Robert Loo, who replaced Bill Daley at the White House. He was on "Fox Sunday" with Chris Wallace this morning. Anyone know what a "loo" is in England? Same as a "W.C.," which stands for "water closet," perhaps the ultimate Victorian euphemism for "toilet."
So, anyway, Mr. Loo now is speaking on behalf of the Comrade. How appropriate.
Chris Wallace asked him where the "right" to birth control pills comes from, since it's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. No doubt a careless oversight on Madison's part. They were all men anyway, right?
Mr. Loo said this "right" comes from the socialized medicine bill.
We've covered this before. No government can invent a human right. Rights come from the Creator, not from the Comrade, Marx, Lenin, or any of his other heroes. So that's a stupid and useless comment, isn't it? Figures it comes from the White House Loo. It's probably written on the wall there, along with the phone numbers for a few congressional whores, like Nelson or Landrieu.
(In fact, not even the government has "rights." No, the government has "powers." Granted to it by citizens with "rights." Get it?)
So then Chris Wallace asked Mr. Loo, since under the Comrade's silly fix, his back-step in trying to claim authority over the Catholic God, the Catholic church will not have to be dispensing birth control and "morning after" pills to its employees. But it's insurance carrier is compelled to.
Isn't this just cost-shifting? Wallace asked. That is to say, won't the Catholic church still be paying for the pills through its insurance premiums?
Mr. Loo says no, because birth control pills are free.
(OK, about this time I'm rolling on the floor laughing, with coffee shooting out my nose. This is like an interview with Foster Brooks, remember, the comic who acted drunk all the time?)
No, really, Mr. Loo insists, if you figure in the cost of birth control pills into the cost of women's overall health care, they don't cost anything.
At this point, even Chris Wallace had coffee shooting out his nose, though the camera panned away from him, no doubt to preseve some of Mr. Loo's floundering dignity.
So in addition to the English "loo" thing, here's the other international part:
I was in Italy many moons ago. At the time, Italy had hyper inflation. The money was so worthless, when you bought something small, like a newspaper, they wouldn't give you change in lire. They'd give you a piece of candy, which was actually worth more and, let's face it, tasted better.
So here's a solution the Comrade might consider, since birth control pills really are "free." Get the drug stores to dispense them. Like, if you go to a drug store for, say, a bottle of fish oil tablets, and you give the clerk, say, a $10.00 bill, with maybe $1.50 change due back... Why not just have the drug store give you your change in birth control pills? Since they're "free," the drug stores won't be losing any money, right? And neither the Catholic church nor the insurance companies will have to deal with the issue at all.
This even works for men. If they buy condoms or viagra or something, they can get their change in birth control pills that they can pass along to their partners. Knda like the way junkies swap food stamps around. See how well that all works? Even for the black market. Everyone wins! And no one has to take any responsibility for anything.
And boy, those birth control farmers sure better step up production. I think demand is going to go through the roof. We may not be able to find enough of them growing "free" in the wild anymore. And put up big nets, so next time it rains birth control pills, we won't lose too many.
Save the Republic.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Can you marry marxism with Christianity?
No.
Every time time the Comrade claims to be a "Christian," I sort of snort. Before he believes in any kind of God or spirituality, everything he says and does, and apparently even thinks, is right out of the marxist handbook.
Marx did not believe in any kind of spirituality. According to Marx, we evolved from dirt through continuous and irresolvable fights over the ownership of material things.
Marxism is so grim, unimaginative, and pointless, it makes human life just sort of useless and pathetic all together. You get up and go to work for the sole purpose of making enough money to get up and go to work tomorrow. The only purpose any Marxist has is to be a slave to the state. The peons are supposed to hold that as a "virtue."
And maybe someday, you can run for President of the USA, and drive around in a big jet and be surrounded by the Secret Service.
Marx was all about materialism -- and not the Madonna kind of materialism, but the kind that says, to quote from Reap the Wild Wind, -- "Laying in the mud, man looked up and saw the stars. And thought they were something to eat."
That's Marx.
Has that got anything to do with Christianity?
Well, they're both faith-based and neither has been absolutely proved.
But Christianity exalts aspiration, joyousness, family, civility, and if you're Jesuit, even intellectuality. Christiantiy applauds achievement and personal development, and above all, a personal conscience and self-directed, responsible, ethical behavior. Judaism the same. (For me, the jury's still out on Islam.)
Marxism does not. Marxism insists we're exactly the same, interchangeable cogs in the big wheel of a univerisal and absolutely authoritarian government. You do what you are told by someone else, whoever's in power. To do, own, want more than anyone else marks you as socially undesirable, especially if you exercise your own capacity for rational thought and insist on making personal judgments. In marxist cultures this gets you killed.
Marxism and Christiantiy cannot occupy the same space -- hence the suppression of religion in the Soviet Union and most ofther marxist nations. And I think that's what the Comrade and the rest of the nation is beginning to figure out. He's trying very hard to suppress religion here. It competes against his own beliefs, and cannot be allowed to exist in his marxist utopia.
The Comrade, of course, is all for the superiority of the state. That's his "fundamental transformation" of America. Take away personal liberty, personal property, freedom and happiness in trade for socialized medicine.
Sound good to you? Think about it and exercise your own judgment about it -- while you still can.
Save the Republic.
Every time time the Comrade claims to be a "Christian," I sort of snort. Before he believes in any kind of God or spirituality, everything he says and does, and apparently even thinks, is right out of the marxist handbook.
Marx did not believe in any kind of spirituality. According to Marx, we evolved from dirt through continuous and irresolvable fights over the ownership of material things.
Marxism is so grim, unimaginative, and pointless, it makes human life just sort of useless and pathetic all together. You get up and go to work for the sole purpose of making enough money to get up and go to work tomorrow. The only purpose any Marxist has is to be a slave to the state. The peons are supposed to hold that as a "virtue."
And maybe someday, you can run for President of the USA, and drive around in a big jet and be surrounded by the Secret Service.
Marx was all about materialism -- and not the Madonna kind of materialism, but the kind that says, to quote from Reap the Wild Wind, -- "Laying in the mud, man looked up and saw the stars. And thought they were something to eat."
That's Marx.
Has that got anything to do with Christianity?
Well, they're both faith-based and neither has been absolutely proved.
But Christianity exalts aspiration, joyousness, family, civility, and if you're Jesuit, even intellectuality. Christiantiy applauds achievement and personal development, and above all, a personal conscience and self-directed, responsible, ethical behavior. Judaism the same. (For me, the jury's still out on Islam.)
Marxism does not. Marxism insists we're exactly the same, interchangeable cogs in the big wheel of a univerisal and absolutely authoritarian government. You do what you are told by someone else, whoever's in power. To do, own, want more than anyone else marks you as socially undesirable, especially if you exercise your own capacity for rational thought and insist on making personal judgments. In marxist cultures this gets you killed.
Marxism and Christiantiy cannot occupy the same space -- hence the suppression of religion in the Soviet Union and most ofther marxist nations. And I think that's what the Comrade and the rest of the nation is beginning to figure out. He's trying very hard to suppress religion here. It competes against his own beliefs, and cannot be allowed to exist in his marxist utopia.
The Comrade, of course, is all for the superiority of the state. That's his "fundamental transformation" of America. Take away personal liberty, personal property, freedom and happiness in trade for socialized medicine.
Sound good to you? Think about it and exercise your own judgment about it -- while you still can.
Save the Republic.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The tragedy of socialized medicine
I get a lot emails from people -- jokes, news, all the weird stuff that goes viral. A couple weeks ago I got a link to a YouTube video, part of a Mark Levin radio show from November, 2011. A brain surgeon called in and told Mark about a conference he'd been to with others in his specialty, apparently hosted by what is laughingly referred to as the US Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS -- Heavy Horse Shit?). You can look it up. It's still on YouTube and runs about four minutes.
See, the way it goes with health care under socialized medicine is that doctors really don't have a lot to say about the treatment they give patients. There are several agencies within HHS that will review standard, customary, whatever, therapies are available for whatever can go wrong with the human body. From this stack of possibilities, these committees will pick the therapies that seem most appropriate, according to statistical data, which is already being collected and crunched. They already do this in Europe. You have First Line responses and therapies, Second Line if the First line doesn't work, possibly even a Third line.
So if you find a lump in your neck and go to the doctor, all he has to do is look up on his computer (ideally this info will be on the Internet), exactly what tests to give you and how to treat you. If your doctor strays away from these guidelines, he can be fined $100,000.00 for his first offense. Second time, he goes to jail.
Your doctor may know you better than the bureaucrats in Washington and may have better and more effective ways of treating you, but that doesn't matter. The feds are paying for it -- SOCIALIZED MEDICINE -- so the feds call all the shots. Get it?
So anyway, this brain surgeon goes to this conference with HHS in Washington, and what's under discussion? The guidelines for neurosurgery under Obamacare -- socialized medicine.
So this surgeon just wanted to tell Mark Levin that, for one thing, the feds don't think of recipients of socialized medicine as "patients," or even as "humans," really. No, HHS refers to us as "units." And "units" 70 years old or more who come in with something like a stroke -- what does HHS prescribe for their treatment? "Comfort care."
That is to say, wrap them in a warm blanket and wait until they die.
Of course, that's only for the mooches who are on Medicare. Not for the brightest and the best who buy their own private health insurance.
Before you stand up and crow about that, go find out what a private insurance policy costs per year for people over the age of 70. Unless you're in a labor union, in which case your bosses have got the Comrade by the short hairs and have exerted enough pressure there to get the Comrade to force every other American taxpayer to fund their Cadillac benefits.
But for the other 94% of us who are not in the UAW or SEIU, we'll pretty much be stuck with Medicare. Medicare has pretty much crowded out other insurance for the elderly. People my age have paid for it for most of our working lives -- funding it for our grandparents and parents.
And now we're stuck with -- being wrapped in a warm blanket until we die.
Discussing this with a friend, she noted, "But we'll all be in that same boat." Yeah, well, it's nice to have friends. We can hold hands, wrapped in our warm blankets until we die.
And it's not like it's going to stop with the over-70 crowd.
How long before the invincible 30-somethings, with knees and hips ruined by jogging and no resistance to viruses due to a failure to eat anything but carbs (without a face), begin falling apart? This will occur about the time the last of the few remaining private insurance carriers are folding -- due to employers moving their workers to "the government program."
How will HHS ration for sports injuries? After all, much like the COPD and lung cancer that results from smoking tobacco, sports injuries are largely self-inflicted. In other words, you were asking for it, dude.
Meanwhile, hospitals will be folding, too. Already Medicaid and Medicare payments to these institutions do not cover their costs. The feds can order them to lower their prices, in which case they'll be forced to close.
When Medicaid came to Chicago in a big way, five large hospitals that had served the inner city shut down within about three years. They took so many indigent and welfare and Medicaid patients, and had so few privately-insured patients to carry the load, that the hospitals had no choice but to shut down.
And here's another consideration. I believe this year or next, we'll all be seeing a 2.5% increase in our withholding taxes -- this to pay for healthcare. Your employer will pay much, much more -- either to buy insurance for you from a private carrier, or in penalties for not insuring you at all. Here's a hint: the penalties are a lower amount than the price of insurance. That alone guarantees that only the Executive Suite will be covered by private insurance -- either by the employer or because they're the only ones who will be able to afford it.
So -- over-taxed, private insurance driven out of the market, hospitals closing. Oh, and lest I forget, one doctor announced that according to one or another recent poll, about 35% to 40% of doctors now working are planning to leave practice with the arrival of socialized medicine. They'll either retire, look for teaching jobs, or do something else all together. They aren't fully reimbursed for their services under socialized medicine (or Medicaid and Medicare), and the new socialized medicine law prohibits them from owning businesses outside their practices -- like blood test labs, x-ray services, etc.
So... here we are. Merrily on our way to ruin.
I think of that vicious bitch Pazzo Pelosi and drooling moron Dick(head) Durbin crowing about how the American public is just going to L-O-O-O-O-O-V-E socialized medicine, and I can't find words to express the insult and the rage. They are so stupid they don't understand how very stupid they are.
So thanks, you brainless idiots. Thanks a lot. And may you end up in wrapped in a warm blanket, choking on your own puke. Until you die. And I dearly hope that's before the next election so we can replace you with legislators who will repeal your blockheaded policies.
In other words, Save the Republic.
See, the way it goes with health care under socialized medicine is that doctors really don't have a lot to say about the treatment they give patients. There are several agencies within HHS that will review standard, customary, whatever, therapies are available for whatever can go wrong with the human body. From this stack of possibilities, these committees will pick the therapies that seem most appropriate, according to statistical data, which is already being collected and crunched. They already do this in Europe. You have First Line responses and therapies, Second Line if the First line doesn't work, possibly even a Third line.
So if you find a lump in your neck and go to the doctor, all he has to do is look up on his computer (ideally this info will be on the Internet), exactly what tests to give you and how to treat you. If your doctor strays away from these guidelines, he can be fined $100,000.00 for his first offense. Second time, he goes to jail.
Your doctor may know you better than the bureaucrats in Washington and may have better and more effective ways of treating you, but that doesn't matter. The feds are paying for it -- SOCIALIZED MEDICINE -- so the feds call all the shots. Get it?
So anyway, this brain surgeon goes to this conference with HHS in Washington, and what's under discussion? The guidelines for neurosurgery under Obamacare -- socialized medicine.
So this surgeon just wanted to tell Mark Levin that, for one thing, the feds don't think of recipients of socialized medicine as "patients," or even as "humans," really. No, HHS refers to us as "units." And "units" 70 years old or more who come in with something like a stroke -- what does HHS prescribe for their treatment? "Comfort care."
That is to say, wrap them in a warm blanket and wait until they die.
Of course, that's only for the mooches who are on Medicare. Not for the brightest and the best who buy their own private health insurance.
Before you stand up and crow about that, go find out what a private insurance policy costs per year for people over the age of 70. Unless you're in a labor union, in which case your bosses have got the Comrade by the short hairs and have exerted enough pressure there to get the Comrade to force every other American taxpayer to fund their Cadillac benefits.
But for the other 94% of us who are not in the UAW or SEIU, we'll pretty much be stuck with Medicare. Medicare has pretty much crowded out other insurance for the elderly. People my age have paid for it for most of our working lives -- funding it for our grandparents and parents.
And now we're stuck with -- being wrapped in a warm blanket until we die.
Discussing this with a friend, she noted, "But we'll all be in that same boat." Yeah, well, it's nice to have friends. We can hold hands, wrapped in our warm blankets until we die.
And it's not like it's going to stop with the over-70 crowd.
How long before the invincible 30-somethings, with knees and hips ruined by jogging and no resistance to viruses due to a failure to eat anything but carbs (without a face), begin falling apart? This will occur about the time the last of the few remaining private insurance carriers are folding -- due to employers moving their workers to "the government program."
How will HHS ration for sports injuries? After all, much like the COPD and lung cancer that results from smoking tobacco, sports injuries are largely self-inflicted. In other words, you were asking for it, dude.
Meanwhile, hospitals will be folding, too. Already Medicaid and Medicare payments to these institutions do not cover their costs. The feds can order them to lower their prices, in which case they'll be forced to close.
When Medicaid came to Chicago in a big way, five large hospitals that had served the inner city shut down within about three years. They took so many indigent and welfare and Medicaid patients, and had so few privately-insured patients to carry the load, that the hospitals had no choice but to shut down.
And here's another consideration. I believe this year or next, we'll all be seeing a 2.5% increase in our withholding taxes -- this to pay for healthcare. Your employer will pay much, much more -- either to buy insurance for you from a private carrier, or in penalties for not insuring you at all. Here's a hint: the penalties are a lower amount than the price of insurance. That alone guarantees that only the Executive Suite will be covered by private insurance -- either by the employer or because they're the only ones who will be able to afford it.
So -- over-taxed, private insurance driven out of the market, hospitals closing. Oh, and lest I forget, one doctor announced that according to one or another recent poll, about 35% to 40% of doctors now working are planning to leave practice with the arrival of socialized medicine. They'll either retire, look for teaching jobs, or do something else all together. They aren't fully reimbursed for their services under socialized medicine (or Medicaid and Medicare), and the new socialized medicine law prohibits them from owning businesses outside their practices -- like blood test labs, x-ray services, etc.
So... here we are. Merrily on our way to ruin.
I think of that vicious bitch Pazzo Pelosi and drooling moron Dick(head) Durbin crowing about how the American public is just going to L-O-O-O-O-O-V-E socialized medicine, and I can't find words to express the insult and the rage. They are so stupid they don't understand how very stupid they are.
So thanks, you brainless idiots. Thanks a lot. And may you end up in wrapped in a warm blanket, choking on your own puke. Until you die. And I dearly hope that's before the next election so we can replace you with legislators who will repeal your blockheaded policies.
In other words, Save the Republic.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
How do unions benefit?
So the Comrade's supposed big speech is scheduled for tonight. Yawn. I don't expect any surprises and apparently no one else does either, not even the dems. On top of that, everyone knows the speech is just a big political game to try to dump the blame for this economy on Congress.
Are there any voters out there who aren't aware of this? I mean, who does the Comrade think he's fooling?
Well, maybe the unions? Are union members that stupid? Or is it just their leaders? Power-mad, greedy thugs?
I've said before, I've been in two unions due to "closed shop" laws in Illinois. That is, if you don't join the union, you don't work. I haven't really said which unions they were. I'll say it now, it was SEIU before the communists took over and then later, the Teamsters.
I didn't quite see any advantages from membership in either one. The Teamsters was the worst though. Very high dues withheld from our checks, and our steward was intimidated by the "guys downtown" and wouldn't even ask them any questions. Apart from taking our money every month. the Teamsters had absolutely no impact whatsoever on that job, conditions, days off or anything. But our management bosses were scared poopless of them, too.
So I'm just thinking, what are union members getting out of the Comrade's regime? Are they working? Maybe for six months, 12 months -- for as long as the first stimulus lasted. But now even the US Post Office -- employing the largest aggregate union in the country apart from public school teachers -- even the Post Office is facing serious cut-backs. There's even talks of shutting it down all together.
When I was in the SEIU, leadership tried to donate a whole bunch of money to the dem candidate running for president that year -- and he had promised a "guaranteed income" for everyone. That is, every American would be guaranteed X-amount of income if they worked or not, or whatever their situation might be. The SEIU leadership wanted to support this guy's campaign. But there was such a rage about that... "You mean I gotta work my ass off 40 hours a week plus any overtime I can get and these lazy assholes just sit back and collect?" I think in the end, the SEIU didn't donate any money to anyone that year. As I said, it was before the communists took it over.
During the Reagan presidency, I knew several -- actually dozens -- of union members who became very staunch Republicans. Just like the "solid South," which heretofore had been solidly democrat in protest of Lincoln and abolition.
So union leadership doesn't always reflect the values and beliefs of the people they represent. I'm sure not every SEIU member is a marxist, as that organization's leadership is.
And the Teamsters? Having heard snippets of Jimmy Hoffa Jr's tirade against the Tea Party, I'd guess Hoffa is about as brutal, thuggish and corrupt as his old man. And he'll probably end up buried under a stadium in the Meadowlands, too. Or whatever. Wonder how many Teamsters are also Tea Party? Something to think about, Junior.
Much more recently, as a journalist, I watched the demise of an industry partially due to union pressures. The industry was automating. The union represented only maybe a quarter of the people employed in businesses nationwide, and then usually only in the larger businesses. As technologies changed and the industry shrunk just due to those developments (consumers could do their own work, rather than go to one of these businesses to have it done), the unions started screaming and hollering, demanding better pay, blah-blah-blah. The industry union got so small that it's now joined itself to either the Teamsters of the AFL. I forget which.
One company was the largest in this industry in the world. The union began ranting and raving, lying and trying to generate all kinds of bad publicity, lobbying for things Card-Check (that's the first time I ever heard of it, in the 1990s), and also trying to organize its union internationally. The union apparently believed this huge, huge company was the place to start. Many of its facilities were already organized and the company had always got along pretty well with its unions. Until the harrassment started.
So this biggest company in the world started selling off and shutting down its plants all over the world. It took its remaining capital and restructured itself into a succesful business in a different industry. And there's about 30,000 one-time employees who don't work for them anymore. The unions were just too much trouble to deal with. So the corporation cut and run while it still had something left to start over somewhere else.
Anyways, now I'm rambling. But I just hope the union membership takes a step back and thinks about all this before they get on the bus, drink the Kool-Aid, and start beating up bankers or Tea Party members or whatever Junior and Trumpka wants them to do. The membership are Americans, too, after all. Once a free and proud people. Are they still?
Save the Republic.
Are there any voters out there who aren't aware of this? I mean, who does the Comrade think he's fooling?
Well, maybe the unions? Are union members that stupid? Or is it just their leaders? Power-mad, greedy thugs?
I've said before, I've been in two unions due to "closed shop" laws in Illinois. That is, if you don't join the union, you don't work. I haven't really said which unions they were. I'll say it now, it was SEIU before the communists took over and then later, the Teamsters.
I didn't quite see any advantages from membership in either one. The Teamsters was the worst though. Very high dues withheld from our checks, and our steward was intimidated by the "guys downtown" and wouldn't even ask them any questions. Apart from taking our money every month. the Teamsters had absolutely no impact whatsoever on that job, conditions, days off or anything. But our management bosses were scared poopless of them, too.
So I'm just thinking, what are union members getting out of the Comrade's regime? Are they working? Maybe for six months, 12 months -- for as long as the first stimulus lasted. But now even the US Post Office -- employing the largest aggregate union in the country apart from public school teachers -- even the Post Office is facing serious cut-backs. There's even talks of shutting it down all together.
When I was in the SEIU, leadership tried to donate a whole bunch of money to the dem candidate running for president that year -- and he had promised a "guaranteed income" for everyone. That is, every American would be guaranteed X-amount of income if they worked or not, or whatever their situation might be. The SEIU leadership wanted to support this guy's campaign. But there was such a rage about that... "You mean I gotta work my ass off 40 hours a week plus any overtime I can get and these lazy assholes just sit back and collect?" I think in the end, the SEIU didn't donate any money to anyone that year. As I said, it was before the communists took it over.
During the Reagan presidency, I knew several -- actually dozens -- of union members who became very staunch Republicans. Just like the "solid South," which heretofore had been solidly democrat in protest of Lincoln and abolition.
So union leadership doesn't always reflect the values and beliefs of the people they represent. I'm sure not every SEIU member is a marxist, as that organization's leadership is.
And the Teamsters? Having heard snippets of Jimmy Hoffa Jr's tirade against the Tea Party, I'd guess Hoffa is about as brutal, thuggish and corrupt as his old man. And he'll probably end up buried under a stadium in the Meadowlands, too. Or whatever. Wonder how many Teamsters are also Tea Party? Something to think about, Junior.
Much more recently, as a journalist, I watched the demise of an industry partially due to union pressures. The industry was automating. The union represented only maybe a quarter of the people employed in businesses nationwide, and then usually only in the larger businesses. As technologies changed and the industry shrunk just due to those developments (consumers could do their own work, rather than go to one of these businesses to have it done), the unions started screaming and hollering, demanding better pay, blah-blah-blah. The industry union got so small that it's now joined itself to either the Teamsters of the AFL. I forget which.
One company was the largest in this industry in the world. The union began ranting and raving, lying and trying to generate all kinds of bad publicity, lobbying for things Card-Check (that's the first time I ever heard of it, in the 1990s), and also trying to organize its union internationally. The union apparently believed this huge, huge company was the place to start. Many of its facilities were already organized and the company had always got along pretty well with its unions. Until the harrassment started.
So this biggest company in the world started selling off and shutting down its plants all over the world. It took its remaining capital and restructured itself into a succesful business in a different industry. And there's about 30,000 one-time employees who don't work for them anymore. The unions were just too much trouble to deal with. So the corporation cut and run while it still had something left to start over somewhere else.
Anyways, now I'm rambling. But I just hope the union membership takes a step back and thinks about all this before they get on the bus, drink the Kool-Aid, and start beating up bankers or Tea Party members or whatever Junior and Trumpka wants them to do. The membership are Americans, too, after all. Once a free and proud people. Are they still?
Save the Republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)