Posts Tagged ‘Obama-Care’

Barack Obama’s Government Shutdown: He Wants It, He Owns It

Monday, September 30th, 2013

His way or highway…

The media won’t tell you the truth about this, so I’m going to tell you because the American people really ought to know.  Barack Obama is gambling that he will come out of any government shutdown smelling like a rose, but this is not 1995, and the same old playbook will not work.  The media is trying to pull it in that direction, but the simple fact is that Obama isn’t doing so well in opinion polls lately.  The obvious truth is that while Barack Obama is willing to talk with the Iranians, the Syrians, and any number of the world’s dictators, but he will not negotiate with Republicans.  Bill Clinton is encouraging Obama in that direction too, but there’s something different now: In 1995, the US economy was in full recovery from a recession, whereas now, the economy is still barely struggling along.  This time, the American people can sense that something is dreadfully wrong with the direction of the country, and according to a CNN Poll, at least forty-seven percent now believe Obama is acting like a petulant brat.

Naturally, part of this owes to the economy, but part of the problem for Obama and the Democrats is that the American people overwhelmingly dislike his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obama-care.  American workers are seeing their hours cut, hiring has slowed to a Carter-era rate, and job creation is simply bottoming out.  The young, now told they can remain on their parents’ healthcare until 26 years of age, are finding it impossible to find a job.  “Let’s be clear:” Harry Reid is doing Barack Obama’s bidding, and this entire thing is their contrivance.

The American people do not want government shut down, but neither do the Republicans.  The American people also don’t want Obama-care, and for the most part, neither do Republicans.  For the first time since 2010, the American people have begun to see through the dominant, statist media portrayal of events, and as Bob Woodward observed today, if the economy tanks in part due to a government shutdown or due to Obamacare, nobody will remember Senator Harry Reid or Speaker John Boehner some fifty years on. They will remember Barack Obama and his role, much as nobody remembers the Congress that was around when we fell into the great depression of the 1930s, but everybody remembers Hoover.

I believe that if Republicans find the courage to stand tough, they may get a minor black eye, but they won’t get a broken nose, bruised ribs, and cauliflower ears.  Those will belong to President Obama, and by association the Democrats. If they’re not careful, the American people may discover what is really behind Obama’s thinking.

 

Let’s Be Blunt: Lindsey Graham is a Liar

Monday, September 30th, 2013

Just a Little Lie

Let’s just get this out in the open: Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC) is a liar. On Friday, when the Senate voted on whether to end debate on the House continuing resolution, that was the ball-game.  Once the number of Senators needed to amend the bill had been reduced from sixty-one to fifty-one, Reid was free to strip the de-funding language from the bill.  Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC) was among the twenty-five Republican sell-outs who voted to permit Harry Reid to do so.  In tweets and in an official news release, Senator Graham subsequently claimed to have voted against funding for Obama-care, when that can be true only if you ignore the first vote for cloture.  The simple truth is that Lindsey Graham enabled Harry Reid to modify the bill.  Now he claims to be for de-funding Obama-care.  This half-truth is really a whole lie, but he will seek cover behind the latter vote.  He’s busily telling his constituents that he’s opposed to Obama-care, and that he voted to de-fund it, but he’s lying through his teeth, using the procedural nuances of the United States Senate as political camouflage.  Graham’s constituents need only ask him one direct question:

“Would Harry Reid have been able to amend the House continuing resolution without the support of Republicans, like you, Senator Graham?”

The true answer, indeed the only answer to this question is “no.”  Anything else is an attempt to obfuscate, evade, and otherwise obscure the truth.

Here had been his tweet, just moments after the vote:

 

Lindsey Graham is a despicable liar.  He’s hoping that the old formulation of being “for it before he was against it” will be enough to get him past his next re-election campaign, but voters of South Carolina should know that he’s lying to them, and that they now have an option.  Graham is being challenged in the primaries, and it’s about time somebody holds his feet to the fire.  What he’s done in the US Senate has been despicable.  His lies, misrepresentations, and his unflagging support of statism have earned him an involuntary early retirement from the US Senate.  It’s now up to the people of South Carolina to deliver it.

Lindsey Graham had hoped to do what twenty-four of his fellow Senate Republicans had hoped to do: Deceive voters with a shell-game.  Vote for cloture, permitting the bill to be amended, followed by a vote against the amendment, as the means by which to pretend he had voted to de-fund Obama-care.  The simple fact is what it is, and lying, duplicitous, back-stabbing politicians hope to trick voters with this sort of thing.  It’s really just a slightly different formulation of John Kerry’s infamous “for it before I was against it” nonsense of the 2004 campaign.  It’s always the same.  Graham isn’t listening to the people of South Carolina, and he’s gambling that most of them aren’t paying much attention, or will be fooled by this procedural dodge.

He may get away with it if the people of South Carolina don’t take the time to examine what he’s done, but he won’t get away with it here: Senator Lindsey Graham is lying when he claims to have voted to de-fund Obama-care as his previous vote enabled Harry Reid to remove the de-funding language.  This sort of behavior has become increasingly common from Senator Graham, who has supported going to war in Libya, and who has remained one of the key drivers in the Senate for the amnesty bill, leading many to refer to him simply as “Grahamnesty.” Whatever else he is, he’s neither honest, nor conservative, and it’s time he was sent home for good.  Most politicians can be found to have told a whopper or two during their careers, but Graham along with the others who are pretending to have voted against funding Obama-care after enabling it to go forward are simply liars.
Editor’s note: Senator Graham is being challenged in the GOP Senate primary by Nancy Mace, who is trying to overcome the Senator in a bid to replace him in the Senate. She may represent exactly what South Carolina needs in order to get beyond Graham’s duplicitous career in which he says one thing before voters in South Carolina, and another thing while in Washington DC. As you might guess, she has a few thoughts on Senator Graham, here.

The Advocates of Surrender

Sunday, September 29th, 2013

What they do best…

In the last several weeks, the number of analysts and columnists who have advised Republicans to accept Obama-care as the law of the land has been on the rise.  One after the next, they claim in low tones that if only we will accept the fate of Obama-care “for now,” when Republicans re-take control of the Senate and the White House, we will be able to repeal Obama-care and replace it with something slightly less disastrous.  Their prescription boils down to “elect more Republicans,” but I must confess that this “solution” leaves me a bit flat. After all, what good are Republicans, and how will they be elected in greater numbers if there is no effective difference between them and their supposed opponents?  Instead, I have come to interpret such advice differently, because I can rely on history as my Rosetta stone: “Quit, surrender, and capitulate in a battle you cannot win because we haven’t the energy or will to fight it.”  What all of these pragmatists ignore is the moral component of this fight.  They forget or choose to ignore that Obama-care will have very real and often lethal consequences for Americans.  It will destroy lives, families, and businesses.  Even assuming we might elect more Republicans in future elections, that will not restore or repair all the lives that will have been shattered by Obama-care, and to ignore this in order to justify surrender is an impeachment of all those who advocate it.

Let us consider the first victims of this strategy of appeasement and capitulation.  Already, more than one-hundred-thousand American workers have had their hours slashed in order to get below the “part-time” threshold as defined in Obama-care as thirty hours per week.  If you had been a part-timer working thirty-six hours weekly, to get below the threshold, your employer will likely cut you back to twenty-nine hours.  Having been schooled prior to the advent of the US Department of Education, I know that this cut represents a loss of roughly twenty percent of one’s wages.  If I approached you and demanded that you surrender twenty percent of your weekly wage, you’d rightly punch me in the mouth.  Which twenty percent of your income are you able to live without?  This feature of Obama-care alone will result in more people subsisting on the welfare state, and more people thrust down the income ladder into poverty.  On what basis can one claim that we should permit this until we elect a few more Republicans to help us undo it, when Republicans have sufficient power to stop it now?

Consider the Americans who will not find jobs because of Obama-care.  Small businesses won’t be hiring despite having been the well-spring of seventy percent of new jobs in America for most of my life.  More dependency.  More poverty.  More burdens for taxpayers.   It means more shattered American lives.  In the case of the young who are entering the work-force, it means arrested development in an economic sense, and it will result in more wretched conditions in young families, who generally need the health-care the least, since they’re generally healthier, but who will be held to pay for the health-care of others.  What sort of hay-wire moral compass must exist in the Bermuda Triangle that makes real lives disappear into a sea of uniform numbers in Washington DC?  This is abominable, but what makes it all the more ghastly is that there are those who don’t mind the tragedy if it somehow helps to elect more Republicans, though they can’t tell us why this would happen.

Imagine that the purveyors of temporary surrender are correct, and that despite any clear reason, Republicans are able to take over the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016, giving them the power to fully repeal Obama-care if they so choose.  What consolation will this be to the Americans who have their lives cut short by a denial of life-saving treatment, or to their families after they’ve gone?  How many more Americans will not be treated until their various afflictions become lethal because the wait for treatment had become insufferably long?  How will electing more Republicans at some future date help to save them from now to the time of the supposed elections and mythical future repeal?

Barack Obama offers “if it will save only one child’s life, we must act” as justification for gun control, but such a view of Obama-care is not forth-coming despite his own cold, calculated prescription for Grandma to “take a pill.”  He knows, as Congressional Republicans know, that Obama-care will lead to the deaths and suffering of millions.  They even know it will not substantially change the number of uninsured, and we already know by virtue of our own premiums that it is already driving up costs.  Nothing is good or right or moral about this program, and yet the advocates of appeasement and surrender continue to insist that we ought to just swallow hard and wait for a moment that may never come, particularly for those who may not now live to see it.

The advocates who tell us that we must wait on such a moment are of the same mind as those pragmatists who would not rise in opposition to slavery.  They’re entrenched, but paralyzed with fear.  They label their opponents “radicals” and “extremists,” and they cast aspersions at those who still revere Barry Goldwater’s 1964 declaration that “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” It’s small wonder that they rise in anger to the well of the Senate to bemoan their comparison to the likes of Neville Chamberlain: It’s not so much a matter of comparison as it is an identification.  They claim to fear a destructive civil war within the Republican party, but what they won’t mention is that they have been waging it against conservatives for decades.   They demand a return to the party of Nixon, Ford, Bush and Bush while what the country urgently needs is a return to the party of Reagan and Lincoln.

I am willing to wage a civil war within the Republican party, because by my estimation, it’s already begun, and there is no way to repair it to my satisfaction by any other means but naked, political warfare.  The evidence is in, and there can be no realistic expectation that the surrender-monkeys – the Vichy Republicans – are up to a needed fight, because when it comes to identifying one’s adversaries, they are nearly indistinguishable from Democrats, too frequently collaborating with them.

We must defeat this impulse to surrender, because our country and the lives and fortunes of millions of Americans are very much at stake.  To take the advice of the surrender lobby is to attempt to defer a fight, the costs of which are much too high to ask a people to peaceably bear.  If they will not engage now, we must battle on without them, and fight them too, or first, if they evince themselves as an obstacle to victory.  There is a deep moral crisis in the Republican party, and it issues forth from the mouths and keyboards of these advocates of surrender because they expect to avoid the consequences of capitulation.   For the rest of us, who know there can be no escape or safety in delay, this war must be our urgent endeavor.  While they defer engagement in order to save a supposed electoral victory in a future that may never materialize, we are fighting to save the lives and liberties of real Americans in the here and now, and it’s a battle we dare not lose because it’s as much for the soul of a nation as for the individual souls we’re fighting to save.

Obama Claims “Healthcare Is a Right”

Saturday, September 28th, 2013

What Rights?

Barack Obama is nothing if not audacious.  It takes a bold liar to assert a falsehood with such vigorous certitude before such a large audience.  It may be that he gets away with it because most of his audiences are hand-picked and vetted to eliminate rational people, relying instead on mobs of ignoramuses wherever he goes.  One could hope that so many Americans would not be so chillingly vapid in their thinking, but then again, they have elected and re-elected a man who has lied to them repeatedly and fearlessly.  Such a spectacle is only possible because so many people refuse to bother themselves with logic, and instead operate entirely on the basis of their wishes, projected into the political sphere.  Ayn Rand [at least] once characterized such primitive atavism by comparing these politicians to cavemen.  It’s true.  In order to believe health-care is a right, never mind “affordable” health-care, one must arrive at the presupposition that the lives of other men and women exist at the disposal of any taker.  It is to regard one’s fellow persons as slaves, so while Obama prattles on in contrived, dismissive sarcasm over the question, berating the Obama-care’s critics for calling the program the most dangerous law ever passed,  somebody somewhere should take the time to explain to Americans why this law is worse even than the fugitive slave act, over the din of the chuckling drones.  Health-care cannot be a right while men and women are free.

The first question we must ask is: “What is a right?” Some time ago, I answered that question when prompted by a font of Obamtastic ignorance on the subject of Internet access.  Here was my answer:

“A right is a natural entitlement of liberty that requires the consent of no others for its exercise, and imposes no positive obligation upon any other.  If what you propose requires the actions, property, or consent of others, it cannot be a “right.”

Let us consider some rights as contemplated by our founders and the philosophical understanding of the enlightened age, arising from such men as John Locke, among others.  Our founders codified several such rights, and those rights are under assault by government.  Free speech.  Free exercise of religion. The right to keep and bear arms.  The right to one’s life and liberty. The right to self-determination.  The right to be secure in one’s property, papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizure.  The right to obtain legal representation.  The right to a speedy trial.  The right to equal protection under law, that is, equitable treatment by government.  One has a right to one’s income, one’s life and all the things one’s labor(physical or intellectual) produce.

Let us now consider the President’s oafish, dictatorial claim:  That others must be held to provide medical services to any who may come to want or need them.  After all, as Mark Levin pointed out recently, if Health-care is truly a right, then government must not be permitted to create any death panels, or limit any sort of care you might want or need.  Of course, Obama hadn’t meant it when he said it, but he wanted those poor befuddled and bedazzled wishers in his audience to believe it. Instead, what Obama-care creates is dependency,  misery, and slavery.

If Obama and the Democrats(and not a few dastardly Republicans) have their way, they will take over health-care in the United States in its entirety.  Doctors will be fewer, and government will control them. Since no honest or competent practitioner will long subsist in such an environment, only the incompetent and the dangerously sloppy will remain.  No decent person will choose to remain a slave to a government system if they have other options, and the caliber of people who comprise the average medical school student historically suggests that these are capable people who have nearly unlimited career choices before them.  There will be a few great doctors who hang on until retirement, or until they can take it no longer, committed and devoted to their patients, but within a generation, most of the competent doctors will be gone, replaced by incompetents who one wouldn’t voluntarily permit to lance a boil on one’s buttock.  They will be inept and sloppy.  They will be attitudinally-corrupted.  Having chosen to live as a slave, wouldn’t you be resentful after a time?

How can it be a right for one man to dictate the life of another?  How can it be the right of some claimant to reach into the pocket or purse of another and extract cash at will, or make demands of another person’s time and labor? Only in a system in which slavery or indentured servitude is permissible can one find such a circumstance, and yet this is precisely what the President laughs-off as less than dangerous.  Of course, it’s far worse than this implies, because if he has his way, the government will become the sole source(single-payer) and possess a monopoly over the entire medical field.  Only then will the chuckling morons discover how little like a right health-care really is, as they are denied life-saving surgeries and treatments, and they are compelled to pay whatever price the government demands.  They will discover that theirs is a claim without standing, and they will find no recourse anywhere within the borders of the United States.  Since this country is among the few into which you can travel to obtain services on the open market(at present,) once it becomes another victim of the global socialization of health-care, one will find one’s options have run out, excepting perhaps only the super-rich, who will always be able to get their care somewhere, at some price.

This president is a shoddy creature, with a narrow ideological focus and an even narrower mind.  To claim as a right that which others must provide is an infamous attack on the lives and rights of people everywhere.  To do so laughingly expresses a contempt for human life and liberty so thoroughly inculcated as to be dangerously maniacal.  Such master-minds always begin by making such claims, but in the end, they finish by leaving a trail of destruction in their wakes.  Obama is no worse (so far) than his philosophical predecessors, but such a man bears watching, because at any given moment, he may decide to unleash himself from semi-civil, quasi-rational conduct.  Proof of this thesis exists each time one tunes a television to see the latest rant of Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews or Lawrence O’Donnell.  These men offer an insight into the sheer insanity that exists behind the relatively calm demeanor of Barack Obama, and it is precisely that sort of vile creature who can imagine his fellow-man as involuntary servants by claiming a right to their labor, their time, and indeed, their lives.  What may be worse is that for all their pretense and feigned opposition, at least twenty-five Republican senators do not see fit to object.

One cannot have a right to the lives, labors or properties of others, but with a stunted intellect, too many of our countrymen now suppose that because laws may be enacted that would claim otherwise, they are immune from its reach, and therefore safe from its grasp.  Only a people with nothing to offer, fulfilling the exact definition of worthlessness, could imagine their own safety in such a paradigm. This is what we must fight, and it is in the name of life, liberty and the pursuit of our own happiness that we must fight it.  So long as men like Barack Obama imagine other men as their slaves, and servants to their personal whims, there can be no safety in any place or condition on Earth.  It is time for conservatives to demand of their alleged leaders such behavior as would signify their awareness of this mortal threat.  There can be no peace with this, so long as men and women claim to be free.

 

Why The RINO Senators Detest Cruz, Lee

Saturday, September 28th, 2013

Against Us

If it wasn’t clear before, it should be clear now.  Virtually every one of the Republican senators who voted Friday with Harry Reid and the Democrats for cloture had precisely one motive, and it is the thing that has caused them to rise in indignant rage against Ted Cruz, particularly, but also Mike Lee and the others who sought to stop the vote.  They were unmasked as charlatans and frauds, all of them.  Once Ted Cruz and Mike Lee explained to you the dirty little secret behind the fraudulent, wholly symbolic vote, there could be no way for them to carry out their fraud and deception.  These guys, all of them, each and every one, can now be said to have in John Kerry-fashion been for Obamacare before they were against it, and they know it.  All of them.  When the vote amending the bill and stripping the House language was passed just a little while later, it was a strict party-line vote, and every Republican voted against it, knowing it would not matter, and that they could no longer stop it.  The first vote required at least a few Republicans to go along, where as the second required none.  This is the scam.  This is the trick.  Every one of these worthless RINO senators then went out to make statements claiming to have voted for defunding Obama-care, when the truth is that each of those who voted with the Democrats in the first vote actually helped to ensure it would be funded.

Simply, Ted Cruz and his twenty-one hour speech addressed this point repeatedly, revealing the true reason for the establishment’s hatred of him.  They claimed to have a difference with Cruz over tactics, and they surely do: He actually wanted to stop Obama-care, but you can bet every one of these weasels who voted for it have figured out some manner or method by which to make a [larger] fortune over their involvement in the law, somewhere, somehow.  They voted for cloture because they want the issue behind them, and they want to make money from the suffering of millions of Americans that will result from this law.  The Democrats are already raking it in, and they wanted in on the action.  We know too well from the reporting of Peter Schweizer how the Washington DC profiteers function, and it’s clear that some of these Republicans are in on the game too.  The only other possibility is that they are complete and utter cowards, or Manchurian Republicans, really stealth Democrats, but no matter which, these people are dirty politicians who have betrayed you.

Here is the complete list of these charlatans and frauds:

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chiesa (R-NJ)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)…
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Graham (R-SC)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kirk (R-IL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Wicker (R-MS)

Additionally, Orrin Hatch(R-UT) and the aptly named Jeff Flake(R-AZ)(see editor’s note below) didn’t even vote one way or the other on cloture(the first vote) instead opting to vote only on the amended bill, at which time both of these along with the rest on this list joined the other heroic nineteen in voting “no.” After enabling the amendment, stripping the de-funding language, these rotten villains wanted the cover of a “no” vote.  “I voted against stripping the de-funding language.”  Yes, but only after making it possible to amend the bill at all.

I saw Senator Wicker’s statement, and it was a laughable claim to have voted for de-funding.  Ditto Cornyn.  In fact, in some form, nearly every one of these senators made a similar statement, and they are all liars. They get away with this because we let them.  We don’t bother explaining this to our less-informed brethren, and our less-informed brethren are likely only to see the senators’ statements, if anything, and since our less-informed brethren outnumber those of us who bother by a substantial margin, these bottom-feeding charlatans are able to get by in election cycle after election cycle faking their ways through.

In fact, of the nineteen who stood and voted against cloture, there are a few of them who supported amnesty, so I will be watching them closely. Almost all of these are solid conservatives in most every issue, and if they happen to be your senators, consider yourself lucky, and if both your senators are on this list, count yourself doubly so(Alabamans, Idahoans, and Kansans):

Thad Cochran(R-MS)
Mike Crapo(R-ID)
Ted Cruz(R-TX
Mike Enzi(R-WY)
Deb Fischer(R-NE)
Chuck Grassley(R-IA)
Dean Heller(R-NV)
James Inhofe(R-OK)
Mike Lee(R-UT)
Jerry Moran(R-KS)
Rand Paul(R-KY)
Rob Portman(R-OH)
Jim Risch(R-ID)
Pat Roberts(R-KS)
Marco Rubio(R-FL)
Tim Scott(R-SC)
Jeff Sessions(R-AL)
Richard Shelby(R-AL)
Pat Toomey(R-PA)
David Vitter(R-LA)

These seemed at least reasonably sincere in their intentions, in stark contrast to the for-it-before-against-it crowd in the first list.  If you want to know why Cruz and Lee are hated for this, it is precisely because they exposed the frauds among the GOP senators.  None on that first list should ever be considered “conservative” by any rational standard, given this vote.  I’ll tell you another thing these two list separate: Those who will be able to mount a credible run for President from those who will not.  Drop those from the second list who supported amnesty, and what you will see is the list that conservatives will consider among senators who might choose to run for the White House in 2016. Given the age of a few, and the expressed lack of ambition of others, that thins the herd considerably.  Any who express ambitions for higher office ought to be judged sternly on the basis of their positions in political offices beforehand.

I hope my fellow conservatives will join with me in properly contending with the sell-outs who voted for cloture, enabling Harry Reid and the Democrats to strip the de-funding language from the House continuing resolution.  In the end, Obama-care will be implemented only because Republicans had refused to stand in the breach and do the hard work for which we’ve elected them.  Those who took on this job, like Cruz, Lee, Sessions, and just a few others deserve our support and our respect.  The rest deserve a measure of contempt at least equal to that which they have shown for us, and for the oath they had sworn. In 2014, we need to send as many of these conniving, duplicitous Senators home as we are able.  I’m starting with un-Texan John Cornyn.  Texans are looking for his replacement now.

What Cruz and Lee exposed is the dirty little secret of DC Republicans: They aren’t interested in fighting if they can put on a show but keep the party going.  When Cruz took to the floor for twenty-one hours and nineteen minutes, he did so from a sense of duty to the promises he had made when seeking office, and from a firm belief that we ought not have meaningless, symbolic votes that offer cover to people who are factually betraying us.  If you wonder why there had been such a shrill reaction from some of his Republican colleagues, this is it: He exposed them as double-dealing frauds who claimed to oppose Obama-care while actually enabling its funding.  Is it any wonder McCain was on the Senate floor making a perfect ass of himself?  Was it any wonder he did so with the assistance of Reid, Durbin, and Schumer?  I suppose if I were a duplicitous hack like McCain, or Cornyn, I too would be mad at Ted Cruz.  As it is, I thank him and Mike Lee for showing us which Senators are really on our side, but also those who are not. The effort was magnificent, and we would do well to learn all we can from it, acting accordingly in future elections.

Beginning now.

Editor’s note: With apologies to Senator Flake, it appears he was otherwise engaged. Read the story here. Given his vote on the immigration bill, I still believe he is aptly named.

 

The Vichy Republicans: Cornyn, McConnell Undermining Cruz

Tuesday, September 24th, 2013

Surrender: What they do best

A report came to light on Tuesday morning from Breitbart.com detailing the maneuvers being used by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to fully fund Obama-care.  John Cornyn(R-TX) serves as minority whip, and in that capacity, he is helping McConnell in an effort to undermine the efforts of Ted Cruz(R-TX).  This instance demonstrates perfectly the sort of back-stabbing that goes on in Republican leadership in Washington DC.  While Cruz fights to stop the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obama-care, his colleague and fellow Republican from Texas is working against him.  In 2014, when Cornyn comes up for re-election in the Lone Star state, I will support nearly any primary challenger.  Texans can’t afford six more years of fake conservatism.  Cornyn also supports the immigration reform bill, and on other issues important to conservatives, he’s been either invisible or in opposition.  Cornyn is no conservative, and it’s time we Texans brought him home.  We mustn’t let the Vichy Republicans run the GOP any longer, because they undermine the work of real conservatives, who are actively working to forestall the disaster that is Obama-care.

When one observes such behavior from a self-proclaimed conservative like Cornyn, it’s easy to understand why conservatism continues to take a beating.  We permit people like Cornyn to represent us, but the truth is that he’s another Washington elitist who has no regard for his fellow Texans.  In fact, during his tenure in the Senate, Cornyn has worked against conservatives on a number of issues, and his attitude has reflected a certain contempt for grass-roots conservatives.  Meanwhile, Cruz is fighting.   We conservatives like those who will fight for our principles, and in this case, while McConnell and Cornyn follow the advice of Karl Rove, Cruz is out front along with Mike Lee(R-UT) fighting to stop a national catastrophe.

At stake is the future of the country.  If Obama-care is permitted to be fully implemented, we will have in place one more massive entitlement program that will bankrupt the country.  It’s already driving businesses to curtail hours, and to avoid hiring full-time employees.  It will have tax consequences that are far outside the bounds of what most Americans had expected, and it will crush economic activity in general.  It’s already happening, even before the program has been fully implemented.  If we don’t find a way to slay this dragon, we will lose the country.

I would urge my readers, particularly my fellow Texans, to call their senators and demand that Obama-care be de-funded.  At this late date, it is the last thing that can be done short of full repeal.  Disclosed yesterday, a Pew Research poll shows that the “blame” for any government shutdown will go equally to Republicans and Democrats, so there’s no need to fear any of this.  If anything, this should buttress arguments of conservatives who assert that fighting this law is a winning issue for Republicans.  In 1995, during that infamous shutdown, Republicans were overwhelmingly blamed, however it should also be noted that they gained two seats in the Senate in 1996., losing two in the House, but hanging onto their majority for the first time in more than one-half century.

As Sarah Palin explained in an op-ed on Sunday, Cruz is “over the target” on Obama-care, and it should be a matter of “bombs-away.” The American people don’t want this law, and Democrat talking points aside, it is as weak a proposition as ever.  People are seeing their insurance premiums skyrocket, they’re watching their physicians retire out of exasperation, and they’re losing their jobs, or seeing their hours cut.  Even the unions aren’t very happy, because Obama-care is a job-destroyer.

The tricksters of the GOP establishment are trying to sabotage the efforts of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.  Mitch McConnell is the sorriest example of a Republican leader we’ve had in the Senate for some time, and now he’s playing parliamentary games in order to prevent Cruz from succeeding while still giving Republicans a chance to make a symbolic vote against Obama-care.  It’s time we put an end to this nonsense.  McConnell and his sidekick Cornyn are attempting to pull the wool over our eyes.  These “Vichy Republicans” are the bane of conservatism, and given what Obama-care will do to the country, surely of all Americans.  Call your senators.  Call every Senator.  De-funding Obama-care isn’t a game.  It’s life or death for millions of Americans, their jobs, and the country at large.

Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

If you are a Texan, you can call this rattlesnake and let him know we’ve got his number: John Cornyn (202) 224-2934  If you want to take a crack at Vichy Republican Leader McConnell, here’s his number: (202) 224-2541

 

 

Who’s Really Trying to Shut Down Government?

Saturday, September 21st, 2013

“Take a pill…”

The conventional wisdom in Washington DC is that if the Republicans in the House take the fight over funding of Obama-care to the limit, they will pay a price at the polls in 2014 should government shut down.  The fact of the matter, however, is that the House of Representatives has as one of its constitutional powers the primacy over federal taxation and expenditures.  There should be no doubt that if the government shuts down, it will not be because House Republicans hadn’t passed a bill to fund government, but that Senate Democrats conspiring with the President insisted on funding a program to which nearly sixty percent of Americans remain opposed.  Why wouldn’t Americans oppose Obama-care?  It’s driving up costs, killing jobs, reducing wages, and stealing the foundation of middle-class America.  There is only one party committed to the notion of shutting down government in the name of such a program, and it is that party, driven by a highly ideological president that will insist on the shutdown.  Everybody acknowledges that Obama-care isn’t even close to being fully ready for roll-out, including the President, who has delayed various portions of the law, including the employer mandate, but none of this will stop him if he can help it.  Who’s willing to shut down government?  President Barack Obama and his henchmen in the Senate will do and say anything to take over your health-care.

The Republicans should stand ready to shut down the government to prevent this atrocity in economic and human terms.  Obama-care is worse than a disaster.  It is a sole-source national wrecking ball that will kill.  It will lead to the death of businesses, small and large, the death of the middle-class, and ultimately, to the premature deaths of countless Americans who will be denied care or given substandard, delayed medical attention that almost certainly could have saved or extended their lives.  Perhaps worse, the government’s estimates suggest that it won’t really reduce the number of uninsured Americans, but it will drive our nation’s debt to an insanely, unsustainable new high from which we will never escape.  Republicans ought to be willing to stand forth and take credit for shutting down government if that’s what it takes to stop such a program, but one can understand the fear tactics in play, so that politicians don’t wish to be associated with it if it’s possible to avoid.

With that in mind, however, the President is willing to shut down all the other departments of government in order to preserve this one new unsustainable program.  What sort of arrogance must consume him?  This president is willing to delay Social Security payments, medicare reimbursements, military pay, and all the other pre-existing obligations of government in order to preserve a program that has come to bear his name.  This is vanity written on a presidential scale.  For all the blathering of Democrats about compassion, they are willing to sink an entire nation for the sake of a program that was mortally flawed from the moment of its conception.  In order to preserve a program that they consider important to their political futures, they are willing to submarine a nation, its freedoms, its economic opportunities, and its people.  Who is willing to shut down government?  The President and his party are willing to sacrifice the entire nation to this extension of their miserable misunderstanding of the laws of nature and economics.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats are scared to death.  They ought to be, because if this program goes into effect as it is currently written, the results will be tragic for most Americans.  “Death panels” are a feature, and not a bug, as we in the computing field might say.  They’re important to any cost-savings Obama-care claims to achieve, although no evidence exists that such savings will be realized.  More, the government will now collect data not only on your health, but also on your behavior, your preferences, and all manner of characteristics with respect to you and the way you choose to live your lives.   Politically-favored groups will get special dispensations in the name of some alleged notion of “fairness,” while others will be punished relentlessly through higher premiums and denied care.  The worst thing a nation can do is to politicize its health-care, and that will be among the strongest results of the entire Obama-care tragedy.

I wish more Republicans had the guts to stand up and take credit for trying to stop this law.  I wish fewer Americans were so easily manipulated by media.  Nevertheless, the truth is what it is: Obama-care is the greatest attack on the American way of life in four generations.  It will kill more Americans than al-Qaeda’s wildest dreams, and it will bankrupt us more rapidly than even our already spiraling expenditures would manage, reducing the whole nation to poverty.  Who is willing to shut down government in order to carry this monstrosity forward, and what must be the nature of their motives?  They might claim “compassion,” but the truth is that Obama-care represents the naked aggression of the state against its people.

After all, where is the compassion of Democrats for all the people who won’t be hired tomorrow because employers do not wish to increase their liability under the law?  Isn’t it cheaper and easier to outsource to Asia than to hire an American?  Where is the compassion of Democrats for all the Americans who are having their hours cut, in order to get below the Obama-care maximum part-time hours?  Where is the compassion for all of the people who will now die prematurely, unnecessarily, because Obama-care will limit what sort of procedures may be done or which medical devices might be used on a particular patient?  If you want to know the real compassion of Obama-care, it is encapsulated in the President’s infamous counsel to a 2009 town-hall questioner that granny ought to just take a [pain] pill rather than put her survivors through the expense of keeping her alive.

The truth about Democrats’ alleged compassion is that it extends in every direction in which they can easily buy political support, but in no direction at all when it cuts into their power.  Democrats’ compassion isn’t for all the individual lives they will wreck in all the ways Obama-care will accomplish, but instead for the sake of their own political advantage.  For power, they are willing to shut down government, starve granny, and hand her a pain pill if she becomes too loud in her agony.   When people argue over who is willing to shut down government, we should all recognize the sad fact of the matter at least in this case: The Republicans are merely trying to stop a disaster from wrecking the whole country, but otherwise willing to continue funding government pretty much as-is.  The President and his party of shameless power-hungry looters are willing to starve anybody if it will carry their newest program forward.

Americans should be calling their Senators, Democrat and Republican, to insist on joining Ted Cruz and Mike Lee on the de-funding of Obama-care, or simply resign themselves to take their pills and be quiet about it.

The Moral Depravity of Triumph by Default

Saturday, July 27th, 2013

Don’t Worry, It Will Collapse!

Observing the fight within the Republican Party over funding Obama-care, one might come to understand how thoroughly broken is the moral state of so many politicians.  One might also begin to grasp the fullness of the amoral position of political advisers and analysts, who help to shape the debate while bearing none of the consequences for its outcome.  The proposition advanced by Karl Rove and the hapless congressional Republicans who drink his brand of kool-aid is that threatening a government shutdown over the funding of Obama-care is dumb, since in their expressed view, it will somehow “collapse under its own weight.” I wish to direct your attention to the ethical position of this group of moral defaulters, and what it says of their view of fellow Americans, even if we take them to be sincere: They are willing to see billions or trillions of dollars wasted in order that the program will “collapse on its own.”  There is a certain cowardice attached to this sentiment, but more, it speaks to a deep depravity that is part and parcel of their notion of governance: They wish for you to believe that “triumph” may be had by a moral default that will destroy the lives of millions.

Naturally, given the advocates of this position, one is right to wonder in the first instance how sincere they may be.  After all, it is not exactly a state secret that many of these Republicans and their puppet-masters will make out like bandits from the implementation of Obama-care.  If the program collapses in the end, it won’t matter because it will have been during the implementation phase that they had made off with the loot.  Contracts of every description are being made between the federal government and vendors, so that a huge sum of money is flowing directly from the Treasury into the hands of cronies who are filling their pockets with cash.  Not nearly all of those cronies are Democrats.  For this reason alone, it is wise to suspect the sincerity of Rove and others like him who wish to continue implementing Obama-care on the basis that its collapse is allegedly nigh.

Taking them at their word, momentarily, let us imagine that they’re clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.  Let us imagine that they’re not filling their pockets with as much Obama-care implementation cash as their pockets and the pockets of their friends can hold.  Let us further stipulate that they may sincerely believe that Obama-care is so obnoxious to liberty and so burdensome to economic prosperity that it will be crushed under its own weight.  Even if this is so, what can one say about the moral depravity of a person who stands aside as a children play with matches having doused themselves with gasoline?  Is it possible to later claim that one hadn’t possessed some responsibility to intervene and to stop the certain disaster?

If and when Obama-care “collapses under its own weight,” I suspect this crowd will show up on television to gloat and to proclaim themselves “right.”  It will be an empty victory dance to be sure, since along the path from the passage of the Affordable Care Act to the supposed collapse, trillions of dollars will have been wasted on implementing a bad idea, trillions of dollars in economic activity will have been suppressed, and real people will have their lives shattered or ended if they happen to lose life’s lottery and come to need substantial health services during the period Obama-care remains in effect.  How many tax-payers dollars will have been squandered?  How many people will endure extended, protracted poverty because they were unable to obtain full-time employment because companies will restrict workers to twenty-nine hours per week?  How many will run head-long into those death panels Sarah Palin predicted while her critics chortled, only to later admit that rationing is a primary goal of Obama-care?  How does one perceive victory in any of this?

When Senatorial lemmings like Richard Burr(R-NC) suggest that Mike Lee’s(R-UT) intention to fight Obama-care by de-funding it even at the cost of a government shutdown is the “dumbest idea” he’s ever heard, what one can detect in his further explanation with laments about 1995 is the pulse of a coward who hopes to escape the difficulty of taking a solid position, instead hoping to win by default.  This man and all those like him, including Rep. Tom Cole(R-OK) hope to avoid controversy and avoid any political blame, but I must demand that they take the blame for failing to stop what they admit they already know will be a catastrophe.

I blame each and every Republican, whether elected or instead part of the consultancy class, because these alleged “leaders” who by their own statements on the terminal estimates of Obama-care, know full and well that it is a calamity.  By standing up and being counted now, they could help the country to avoid the grotesque spectacle of a health-care law that is certain to fail and cause untold suffering for millions, perhaps tens of millions, but they are not haunted into action by the ghosts of their future victims.  This disease that pervades Washington DC and its professional consultancy permits them to imagine they will be insulated from judgment, but every American, whether they had supported Obama-care, or instead like the vast majority who opposed its passage and implementation will have known or ought to have known that these default-merchants are really amoral merchants of death.

There is no moral abstention possible in a matter in which the lives and financial futures of three-hundred million Americans are at stake, and the outcome is already known.  They claim to sincerely believe that it will collapse, but even if we imagine that they are not filling their pockets from the mad scramble to implement this program, these people claim to understand what a disaster the Affordable Care Act will be, so that they have a responsibility to act. Instead, what we get from these political cowards and opportunists is a dance of default, hoping to celebrate on the ashes of a program that will have destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth for average Americans and prematurely ended the lives of so many who need not have gone to their graves so soon.  When I see the grinning face of the rotund, balding and bespectacled carnival-barker on FoxNews, holding up his whiteboard while advocating the acceptance of an onrushing disaster we should have avoided, I know I am seeing the Devil incarnate, because what he demands that we accept is a vast slaughter of Americans and their wealth so he can later claim: “It told you so.”

“Winning” by that sort of default is no victory.  If conservatives wish to take the moral high road, we must first discard this shoddy notion of “triumph by default,” deciding instead to fight against this as the last living defenders of ourselves and our fellow man, knowing that if it does collapse under its own weight, Obama-care will crush the lives of millions.  Worse yet, what will the wreckage be if it doesn’t collapse? Rove and his acolytes never answer this question, but it is one we must confront as we consider his advice.  If the road to Hell is paved with allegedly good intentions, then the speed at which we travel down it will have been determined by our own moral default.

At the end of the road, you may pass a welcoming man with a whiteboard.

 

Obama to Hide Disaster of Obama-care Until After 2014 Mid-Term Elections

Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013

Imagine enacting a law that will be so devastating to the economy that you feel compelled to hide it through subsequent election cycles.  That’s precisely what the Obama administration is doing, as the Democrats scheme for some way to take back the House in 2014.  Worse, the Republicans are just stupid enough to help.  As has been widely reported since Tuesday evening, the Obama administration, citing widespread corporate concerns, is delaying the implementation of the employer mandate.  That’s right, they don’t want you to see how many people are going to lose their jobs, or how bad healthcare is going to become until after the mid-terms in 2014.  Worse, a former Congressional Budget Office Director is calling the move “deviously brilliant.”  Excuse me, but is there that sort of discretion in Obama-care?  Does the law permit the administration to simply delay implementation of these “features” in this way?  I don’t think we’ve yet determined if all of the waivers the administration has issued to various favored groups are legal, much less a wholesale roll-back of the law.  We are being clobbered, and in largest measure, it’s because we are a country governed by tyrants who wish to manage us like a herd.  Where are the Republicans on this? My apologies, I shouldn’t have asked because we all know John Boehner is busy figuring out how to shove amnesty down our throats.  Maybe he can concoct another symbolic repeal vote!

The simple fact of the matter is that our government is under the complete control of criminals and people who must be considered criminally incompetent.  Do you know what this really means?  This means that the Obama administration and their stooges on Capitol Hill have crunched the numbers, and what will come with Obama-care is massive unemployment and lost wages just in time for an election season.  If that were to occur, you would see massive anti-Democrat turnout, which while possibly helpful to the hapless Republicans, would threaten to take away John Boehner’s excuse that he’s only one-half of one-third of the government, as the Senate would come into reach.  What’s more frustrating than this is the fact that so many Americans are so disconnected that most will not know of this even with all of the hoopla.  Most of those who notice will go back to their reality television and their sports and forget all about it before the election.

At the current rate of alienation of their voting base, Republicans will manage to miss this opportunity as they continue their drive for amnesty, and the large corporations are getting it.  Surely, they can drive away far more conservatives than the number of independents who will notice or remember this story some sixteen months from now.  Don’t worry, because the individual mandate will go on as scheduled.

Now the real and unvarnished truth of Obama and Obama-care is revealed: It’s a job-killing, care-rationing act of tyranny from which corporate giants can find relief with the Obama administration, while individual citizens must pay fines, er, uh, “taxes,” according to some particularly treasonous Supreme Court justices.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no fixed law.  Law is whatever Herr Obama decides it will be from day to day, while Johnny, Mitch and the boys on Capitol Hill are content to leave it that way, with John Roberts giving his seal of approval.  Think what you will, because while what is being done by design and carefully plotted intention to this country might have landed the culprits on the gallows in years long bygone, nowadays there exist nobody who is going to do the first little thing about it.  Nobody.

Now, what’s on the tube?

Holding Mitt’s Feet to the Fire

Monday, September 10th, 2012

Time for a Shake-Up

I’ve been told repeatedly that we must elect Mitt Romney, come what may, because the country won’t survive Obama for another four years. Whether this assertion is true, those who hold this point of view invariably follow up with a claim that I now find utterly laughable.  I am told: “Besides, if Romney wins, we’ll be able to hold his feet to the fire, and get him to do our bidding…”  I wonder if the people who express this view realize how thoroughly nonsensical that position really is.  There is only one way to hold a President’s feet to the fire, and it is by being able to exert electoral control, but as of the Rules Committee report of Tuesday at the RNC, that option is now all but effectively gone.  I would like those who claim that we conservatives will be able to exert some influence over a President Romney to explain to me with precision how that is to be accomplished, apart from vague platitudes:  How can we expect to “hold his feet to the fire?” By what mechanism?

First of all, what fire?  Romney hasn’t pledged much except to repeal and replace Obama-care.  Replace?  Yes, “replace.”  For those of you who practice self-deception, you might not have heard him say that, but now I ask you:  “Replace with what, precisely?”  Here we are delivered more vague platitudes about market-based solutions, but not once does Romney offer what those solutions will be.  More platitudes.  More vague generalities.  It’s a load of hogwash. Welcome to Romney-care 2.0. Welcome to Romney 3.0.

Let us assume, however, that there is some magical laundry list of things Mitt Romney had promised with some specificity.  Even if he has, could some brave soul please explain to me the method by which he is to be made to perform as promised?  What will you do if he refuses?  Will you “primary” him in 2016?  Fat chance.  The power grab begun in the RNC’s rules committee consisted of making that nearly impossible.  What will you do?  Deny him campaign funds?  The advent of SuperPACs has made this an irrelevant point.  Karl Rove will merely scare up a few hundred million dollars and spend it on his behalf.  Why should he care?  Now, if Karl Rove were to get mad at him, that would be a different thing.  What are the chances that he won’t do the bidding of his masters?

Right.  Now you’re catching on.

Once you understand that there is no method by which you will be able to even lean on Mitt Romney, except in the court of public opinion, you must also realize that this notion of “holding his feet to the fire” is as vaporous as spilled acetone.  There is nothing you can do to affect Mitt Romney if he is elected.  Nothing.  The influence any party and its voters exerts over a President is already slim once they obtain that high office, but in the case of Romney, given the rigging carried out on at the Republican Convention, but frankly throughout this primary season, there is virtually nothing short of an actual coup d’etats that would pry him from his positions, whatever they may be.

Amnesty?  Abortion?  Romney-care?  What are you going to do about it once you elect him, having effectively given him the power to re-write the rules of the convention at will?  You’re going to whimper and cry, and you will be stuck with eight years of his liberal tendencies, and as almost half the span of yet another generation will have elapsed believing that this had been  conservatism, your country will be lost. Even now, Governor Romney is out on the campaign trail explaining that he will not repeal all of Obama-care, but will instead opt to keep some of it.  This is what we are told is conservative?  This man, it is said, can be held to perform the promises he’s made?  It hasn’t been two weeks since the convention, and he’s already ditching promises.

One can’t help but observe that the GOP establishment is bound and determined to give us candidates who are not conservative, but who will claim the label long enough to win in primaries before becoming full-bore mush.  For a man who had described himself as “severely conservative,” whatever that means, the rush to retreat from his promise to repeal all of Obama-care is breath-taking.  For those of us who hadn’t believed him, the only thing breath-taking about it has been the predictability of the matter, and the gullibility of all those who have assured us it wouldn’t go that way.  Put another way, the Mittster has shaken up the Etch-a-Sketch, and he’s drawing a new picture.  Post-convention Mitt will now advocate a modified Obama-care rather than a full repeal.

Will anybody who claims to be a conservative please explain to me in unvarnished terms how it is that we will “hold his feet to the fire” on this issue?  This is the enduring problem with Mitt Romney, and it puts the lie to the claim by some who argue that despite his clear attachment to liberal positions on a variety of issues, we conservatives will somehow be able to exert some sort of governing force over him.  It simply isn’t so, and the delusions attached to such claims are astonishing only in the implicit motives of the claimants.  Why pretend?  Why not simply deal with the truth?  If conservatives expect anything but Obama Lite from a Romney administration, they’ve been led astray.  It’s time we begin to contend with the reality at hand:  The GOP establishment moderates who are running the party have led it to ruin, and it’s going to be up to we conservatives to rescue the country, not only from the rabid left, but also from their collaborators in the Republican party’s liberal wing.

Doctors Consider Quitting Over Obama-Care

Tuesday, July 10th, 2012

Coercion is Next

Every doctor in America who is worth his or her salt should quit.  Apparently, given the impending implementation of Obama-care, they’ve been contemplating it. How many?  Eighty-three percent!  Unfortunately, most of them will not quit, and more is the shame because if we want to defeat Obama-care, that’s the way it could be done.  That, or the statists would need to unmask completely and simply enact in law what they intend:  Health-care professionals, from doctors to nurses to orderlies must now be the slaves of the state.  If you think this is an overstatement, consider the facts.  When you are forbidden from negotiating your wages, and must accept whatever some bureaucrat tells dictates, you are a slave.  You can pretty it up any way you like, but that’s where all of this will lead.  Eventually, those skilled enough, smart enough, and diligent enough to be doctors will realize they would be better off doing something else.  Instead, the ranks of doctors and nurses will begin to be filled with the incompetent, the slothful, and the under-qualified.  This is what always happens under socialized medicine, and every one of these would-be slaves has the same moral right to refuse this servitude, and the sooner they do, the better the chance that they will spawn a movement in opposition.

If you’re not a doctor or nurse, and you’re not a skilled radiologist, and you haven’t the foggiest about how to operate an MRI machine, you might want to hold on a moment before joyfully proclaiming your new “right to medical care” under the Affordable Care Act(a.k.a “Obama-care.”)  Those who foolishly believe they will maintain some form of private health insurance over the longer haul ought to pay attention too.  Let us imagine everybody has insurance, as the Utopian masterminds behind Obama-care promise.  Then what?  It is not only money that can be inflated out of all value.  An insurance to purchase a service that is in shortage isn’t much of an insurance, is it?  Imagine having auto insurance of this sort.  You have your fender-bender, and your insurance company estimates the damages, sending you out in search of a shop to perform the repairs.  What if you can’t find one?  What if you sit there with the check from your insurer, satisfying your claim in full, but there exists no shop to perform the work, or so few, that you will be without your vehicle for weeks or months, or perhaps longer.  How will you maintain your job?  How will you get to the grocery store?

Naturally, if you’re a welfare leech, you’re not much worried about that, but if you’re a working American with bills to pay, you’d better begin to think about it now.  Under Obama-care, slowly, but surely, this will become the inevitable conclusion:  Care will be of poorer quality, more scarce, and since everybody will have their coverage, there will be no advantage by offering more in payment.  How long before a black-market medical system develops?  Do you deny the possibility of all of this?  Are you stuck on the notions of what you have known, rather than what can(and likely will) now come to pass?  What happens when it’s your six-year-old daughter down at the emergency room with a fractured wrist, in a line that stretches up and down the hallways and side corridors, because there exists a severe shortage of medical professionals?  Will your wishes mute your daughter’s agony?

You think doctors and nurses are endless, bottomless pits of human compassion, but they’re not, and no person is, because it’s simply not possible.  More, if you want their compassion, shouldn’t you offer them yours?  Why do you wish to have them work as slaves to your needs?  Isn’t that what this whole corrupt system has become?  Tax-payers must be slaves.  Doctors and nurses and orderlies must be slaves.  Everybody must be slaves but he who has nothing to offer, and no intention of offering it, since he has no intention of obtaining it by his own efforts.

Am I being too crass, and too obnoxiously terse in my appraisal?  Brother, you haven’t seen the half of it yet.  Wait until doctors are unionized, since it will be the only way to protect their diminishing wages, and they look at you and your suffering child, parent, or spouse and say simply: “I’m on break.”  At the ends of their shifts, they will walk away, as carelessly as the country has walked away from them.  What do you think is the meaning about the endless delays in Medicare payments, and the inaction of Congress year after year in adjusting reimbursements to doctors?  Were I a physician, I wouldn’t have a single patient who is in a government system of any sort.  Why would one wish to accept patients whose payment will always be less than it ought to be, while robbing from paying patients in order to subsidize the government-paid accounts?

Imagine running any other enterprise like this for long.  All of your paying customers would abandon you.  You wouldn’t be able to carry off this sort of con-game, because they’d price-shop the matter and move briskly to another provider, whether the product is a widget or the service is the measurement of blood-pressure.  What Obama-care offers, and indeed what all forms of socialized medicine promise is to deliver something many people desperately want without regard to their ability to pay.  That’s it, in a nutshell, and if I were a physician, I’d be looking to set up a clinic somewhere off-shore where I could live out my life unmolested by big government mandates.  Nobody should be compelled to labor.  Neither you, nor I, and certainly not doctors.  We’d better begin to consider if we wish to coerce the people who we expect to save our lives.

Back in 1978, Dr. Milton Friedman discussed all of this at length.  I’ve provided his talk on the matter, in six pieces, here:

Are You Kidding Me? “Silver Linings” Again?

Monday, July 2nd, 2012

Is This a Joke?

I watched the Huckabee Show on Fox News this Sunday, and while Scott Pruitt, and Ken Cuccunelli(Attorneys General for Oklahoma and Virginia respectively,) both acquitted themselves reasonably well, Pam Bondi, the Florida Attorney General, and Huckabee himself, looked foolish. In truth, however, Cuccinelli said some troubling things, both in this appearance and earlier on Fox and Friends. I can even permit that Huckabee was playing dumb for the sake of dragging out answers to questions to which he really knew the answers, but if I was a Floridian, I would know that my state had been cursed with the dumbest Attorney General to appear regularly on TV. After discussing with the panel the absurd logic implicit in Roberts’ decision, and after positing the notion that Roberts had bent to pressure in switching his vote, Bondi went on to state that she believed Justice Roberts was of the highest integrity. What?

I don’t understand how one can be both the sort of noodle who wilts under pressure and simultaneously maintain one’s alleged integrity. The two notions simply don’t fit in the same conceptual soup. If one is true, the other is almost certainly false. She explained that Roberts was seeking to maintain the integrity of the court, but she didn’t explain how voting in what he knew to be exactly the wrong way accomplishes that end. I believe Pam Bondi is confused about the meaning of the word “integrity.” Being on Mitt Romney’s Health-care task force, this doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in that candidate’s promises.

(Fox News hasn’t made this segment of the Huckabee show available on-line – if they do, I will post it here.)

Pam Bondi is, after all, the same AG who bent to political pressure along with her governor, appointing a special prosecutor for the Trayvon Martin case, going after George Zimmerman for murder when all the evidence in-hand really suggests a murder charge is not warranted. In truth, Bondi’s appearance on Huckabee was riddled with similar incongruities in her apparent thinking, and one wonders if she’s qualified to be Attorney General in a State the size of Florida simply on the question of her mental capacity. Being charitable, she spoke like an empty-suited politician, full of hot air, most of it without any discernible meaning, and all of it intended to serve some aim other than to discuss the outcome of this case. Does she have other cases pending she expects to be elevated to the Supreme Court, hoping to win “nice points” with the wayward Chief Justice? Your guess is as good as mine, but after listening to her spewing gobbledygook, I really wanted to turn the channel, though I wound up suffering through the segment until the bitter end.

Another disappointment in the discussion, that I think would apply across the board to all the participants is how they all claimed this had not been foreseen, and that nobody had briefed on the issue of taxes, instead focusing on the commerce clause arguments. This is simply not true, because Landmark Legal Foundation, spearheaded by the brilliant Mark Levin, spent many pages in the Landmark amicus briefs (Here and here) discussing this very matter, taking great care to show how the penalty could not fit into the definition of any of the constitutionally allowable forms of taxation Congress has the power to impose. I like Ken Cuccinelli, and I think he’s a good Attorney General, but I wonder if in this case, he wasn’t a bit asleep at the switch. The same is true of Scott Pruitt. Wake up, fellas!

As for Huckabee, for a guy who has been “working tirelessly” to kill Obama-care, I would have expected he would know the issues a good deal more thoroughly than he did. After all, he did serve as governor of Arkansas, so one would tend to expect he’d have a little more sophisticated understanding of the legal matters, but I suppose it is possible that he was playing dumb to draw out answers, but honestly, that’s not the impression I got from his statements. It made the segment all the more baffling, and doubly disappointing. I kept waiting for him to break out the guitar and sing the Obama-care Blues.

I suspect our troubles with this law are worse than we may have imagined. The more I watch, the more I notice the tendency of some to shrug their shoulders and to tell us to “get used to it.” I have noticed that there is also a tendency to to paint this as though there is some positive, and I was surprised at Ken Cuccinelli’s attempt to tell us about “silver linings” to this decision. Watch this schlock from Fox and Friends:

 

What? There is no limit in this decision. The commerce clause was not restrained. There is no majority decision in restraining the commerce clause. It’s astonishing to see this, and while I know Mark Levin holds Cuccinelli in high regard in most instances, Levin has completely debunked these alleged “silver linings,” as has been discussed here already. Here is the first few minutes of Levin’s show of Friday, 29 June, 2012, to explain why Cuccinelli is absolutely wrong about his “silver linings” thesis:

Alternative content

The evidence of what Levin is saying is plainly evident in these two amicus briefs filed with the court going all the way back to 2011, both in the Florida suit, and the Virginia suit. No two states’ Attorney Generals should have been more prepared for the tax argument than AG Bondi and Cuccinelli, but they’re pretending that this material hadn’t been covered, and was completely unforeseen. Why? What’s the coverup? This is an embarrassment. Surely, somebody bothered to point this out to these Attorneys General before they embarrassed themselves all over Fox News on Sunday.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t pretend to have any special insight into this case, but I can read, and I can listen. What I’m reading and hearing these days from our ostensible leaders is that we ought to just suck it up, “accentuate the positives”(while pretending there are some,) and prepare to live with it. “But be sure to vote for us in November if you’re really, really mad!” There’s no excuse for these Attorneys General not knowing the briefs in this case, inside and out, and the fact that they don’t means they’re spending too much time in front of a camera and too little time practicing law. I realize they have clerks and associates, and junior attorneys to handle some of this, but let’s not ignore that while Mark Levin has been providing them the answers right along, they’ve been oblivious to the details. Mark Levin is a hero in this, and his Landmark Legal Foundation is doing great work, despite the fact that neither the court nor the states’ AGs seem to be paying enough attention, and if you want to know the difference between the leaders we have, and the leaders we ought to have, you need look no further. Dr. Levin would decline such a role, but that merely means we need to listen to his counsel all the more closely. I suspect he would be much more generous to these Attorneys General than I have been in this posting, but only because he is much more gracious than I.

I have maintained that in all such cases, we can discern who is with us, and who is against us, or at least those who may be ambivalent to the outcome. It’s becoming clearer in the wake of this ruling, and I think we conservatives should begin to recognize that when it comes to guarding our constitution against the statist hordes, we are all alone. It’s we conservatives against them all.

If Obama-care Is Overturned, Then What?

Tuesday, June 26th, 2012

What Happens After They Rule...

The  question has been asked here on this site, and on others what will become of the state of health-care if Obama-care falls.  I’ve heard the gnashing of teeth among those who think we need some kind of health-care reform, and while I agree, I doubt most would agree with my own prescription. Cold-hearted.  Selfish.  Greedy.   These are all the terms that would be used by statists to describe my own visions of health-care reform.  Even a few alleged conservatives can’t quite bring themselves to endorse my view because at heart, they’re not free market capitalists.  You shouldn’t be surprised, as there are many self-proclaimed “conservatives” who are really nothing of the sort, and who would just as readily inflict and impose their vision of “fairness” as any left-wing socialist radical.  The difference is that they claim to be motivated by other ideas, or beliefs, but what remains universally true is that to impose them, they too must destroy liberty.  I oppose any such plan, plot, or program, irrespective of the source, and I think it’s time we had this little talk lest there be some confusion: I don’t support government involvement in any aspect of healthcare.  None.

The first thing one must know about the free market is that it is destroyed the moment government becomes involved.  If you want to destroy innovation, efficiency, and industry within any segment of any market, introduce government as a buyer.  This is because government is a terrible consumer because it is not spending its own money, but instead yours.  It’s also because the government has undue leverage in a market where it is not the ultimate consumer.  Of course, there will be those of you who will demand to know the fate of the poor, with the stabbing of a pointed finger against my chest, since the poor, by definition, don’t have a good deal of money with which to purchase health services.  As ever, those who wish to control others rely upon the poor to furnish the excuse for their power.  The question is not “what should we do about the poor,” as Ayn Rand famously observed, but “should we do anything about the poor?” This is where the compassion-fascists show up to berate free-marketeers, claiming that the advocates of this viewpoint are heartless and mean-spirited and greedy.  Balderdash!

In order to have any sort of system in which various “necessities” are provided, it is first necessary to obtain them.  Once government is placed in this role, it is inevitable, and in fact a prerequisite that the government employ cruelty against others, from whom the necessities (or the money to purchase them) will be taken.  Ladies and gentlemen, there is no escape from this, and when I observe statists of either left or right political persuasion making this argument, I remind them first of the inescapable, inexorable moral breech:  Government has only force and on that basis, government becomes a murderous villain in the hands of a statist.  Pay, or die. There are those who enjoy shading the black and white behind a curtain of gray fog, but the simple, undisguised fact is that for any such program to exist, government must become evil.  That’s right, I wrote it: Evil.  I take it as an act of evil whenever one initiates force against another, or threatens force, in order to make material (or other) gain.  If one is an advocate of a government-funded, implemented, or regulated healthcare system by any name, one must admit from the outset that one is in favor of robbery through an agent.

Call it third-party theft.  Call it whatever you will, but when government, on the behalf of some citizens, extorts money from the pockets of other citizens, government  has assumed the role of a mafia protection racket.  One can dress it up in all the Sunday’s finest of “compassion,” or “brother-love,” but what one is doing is to attack one person for his wealth on the basis that it should be provided to others on the basis of their needs.  That’s Marxism, and if one supports this in any measure, he or she is  not a conservative. One can claim it.  One can prefix it with words like “compassionate” all one pleases, but the simple fact is that to threaten one’s fellow man with injury and death; violence and expropriation; robbery and slavery is as abominable and un-Christian as one can be.  There is no mitigation.  There is no excuse.  There will be a long line of those accustomed to robbing their neighbors who will come forth to claim that they possess some right – yes, they’ll actually claim a right – to do through government what they would never consider doing themselves for fear of eating a shotgun:  Robbing their neighbors willy-nilly, and with abandon.

Yes, this is the ugly nature of statism, and it’s why I cannot support any health reform that doesn’t get government out of the health-care business altogether.  It is at this point that some will ask me: “But what of veterans?”  To the degree veterans have been injured in the performance of their duties, just as with any worker injured or maimed on the job, the employer must carry that cost, and since we are the employers of soldiers, yes, it is proper for us to pay for that healthcare necessary to make them well, to rehabilitate them, and to compensate them for permanent loss/injury.  That does not mean we need a vast and inefficient system of providing care to veterans.  While it is true that certain afflictions and injuries are not common in the civilian sector, nevertheless, to the degree we can, we should job this out through private providers.  Speaking as a veteran myself, and having seen what have been deplorable conditions at VA hospitals when I’ve volunteered my time there, I cannot but think that most of the veterans I saw would have been better served in the private sector.

Everybody else?  You’d better figure it out.  One has no entitlement, natural or otherwise, to the contents of his neighbors’ wallets.  Since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, too many Americans have adopted the notion that it is okay to steal from one’s neighbors, or to steal from one’s grand-children so long as government acts as the agent and instrument of that theft.  To steal remotely, through a third party is no less a theft, but it is at once doubly cowardly.  Imagine walking next door to one’s neighbor, and demanding a meal, or an aspirin, or a dollar, or to move in.  In any civilized society, one making such demands would be laughed at, and if he tried to obtain his demands by force, he would be short-lived indeed.  For many millions of Americans, this has become the all-too-common procedure, except that they have the middle-man of government doing their dirty work, never casting the first thought in the direction of the absolute tyranny they’re inflicting on their neighbors, or dismissively concluding that “everyone does it,” which is not only a falsehood, but also a psychological confession of one’s ill intent.

As Rand explained more eloquently, and succinctly, one can do anything one pleases for the poor, out of one’s own pocket, and out of one’s own sense of charity or compassion, and there is naught but good to be born of that approach, be it food, clothing, healthcare, housing, or education.  What one must not do is force others to do one’s will in terms of charity or compassion, because it becomes neither, it breeds contempt, and it is a grave evil of its own in the first instance, for which there can be no ethical justification, despite endless rationalizations born of statist delusion.

I’ve been asked what we should replace Obama-care with, if it’s overturned.  My answer is simply:  A system in which government has no say, and no money in the distribution or provision of health-care, of any sort, as an entitlement for citizens who have done nothing more than breathed.  It is only because of governmental involvement that such shameless thugs as the current dictator of New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, can claim to be acting in the public interest when he bans soft-drinks larger than 16 ounces, or table salt in restaurants, or any of the myriad other tyrannical dicta he puts forth, all “for your own good.”  That sort of monstrous conduct by a public official is just the beginning, and it’s also why I wait along with millions of other Americans to see whether the United States Supreme Court will do its duty, or whether it will enable the advance of tyranny.

There are those who argue that Obama-care must be replaced by something, and my answer is that it should be: The US Constitution.  There exists no entitlement to the wealth of others, whether that wealth is to be taken in order to finance beans and rice or blood transfusions and open heart surgery.  Some will ask where is my compassion, but I maintain that my compassion is with those whose property and wealth is expropriated in the name of the compassion of others.  Unless and until the United States returns to the rule of Constitutional law, the country will continue inexorably downward.  There is no compromise between good and evil, yet what all of this redistributionism endorses is plainly evil.  None of my readers would walk next door and demand from their neighbors such provisions as they might from time to time need, but too many Americans are all too comfortable sending a government agent in their stead.   That’s not liberty.  That’s not freedom.  That’s not right.

 

 

The Insufferable Timidity of John Boehner

Saturday, June 23rd, 2012

Poor John

As the nation awaits the US Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a “Obamacare,” Speaker of the House John Boehner, (R-Ohio) has issued some advice and counsel to Republicans if the Obamacare law should be struck down.  In typical surrender-monkey fashion, Boehner has said that Republican shouldn’t gloat, and shouldn’t “spike the football.”  This is typical of Boehner’s temperament:  Don’t make waves, don’t stir up trouble, and don’t celebrate victory.  During his speech as the health-care bill passed the House, Boehner said, choking back tears, that the law wouldn’t stand.  To date, he’s done remarkably little to assist in seeing that promise through.  One would think that with so passionate a statement at the time of the law’s passage under the dictatorial control of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat majority in the House, even the tepid John Boehner would be moved to celebrate a bit if the law is struck down by the court.

Unfortunately, Boehner is made of tears but no anger.  Americans are rightly angry over the enactment of Obama-care, but for some reason, the GOP insiders in Washington don’t quite grasp it.  This is emblematic of the entire GOP establishment, some number of whom want the law to remain in place so they can benefit from crony-capitalism with the state exchanges created under the law.  They simply don’t share our passion for liberty, and when it comes right down to it, they don’t really represent we conservatives.  I’ve got some bad news for Speaker Boehner, and it’s not recklessly intended, but instead purposeful: If Obama-care is struck down by the courts, I am going to spike the ball.  I’m going to carry on an extended celebration in the endzone, and if the referees say anything about it, they might get the ball spiked in their faces too.

According to Reuters:

“No one knows what the court will decide,” Boehner said in a memo to fellow Republicans. “But if the court strikes down all or part of the president’s healthcare reform law, there will be no spiking of the ball.”

He underlined the last eight words to emphasize his reference to the NFL football end-zone celebration.

Boehner fears Republican gloating over a court victory could detract from the party’s emphasis on the struggling economy and the need for job growth, two campaign issues that consistently trump healthcare as voter priorities in national opinion polls.

“We will not celebrate,” Boehner said, during a time of unemployment and rising government debt and healthcare costs.

If you’re a conservative, you probably wonder why it is that an allegedly conservative Speaker of the House might take such a stance, and why there’s anything wrong with a little celebratory “ball-spiking” should the law be overturned.  The answer is simple: For those who rule over us in Washington, DC,  even the leadership of the party that claims to represent us, liberty is not important.  What upset John Boehner to the point of tears over the passage of the Affordable Care Act wasn’t the content of the bill, so much as the way in which it was passed.  While it’s true that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama used every device of the villain in order to pass the law, and suspended rules, and played fast-and-loose with House and Senate rules in order to shove this law down our throats, that’s still not the most important part of the matter.  At the heart of the matter is the question of liberty, and for that, John Boehner had few tears, and those in the GOP establishment didn’t shed any, either.  For Boehner, it was about the process, and how he had been closed out of it, and how then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi(D-CA) shoved a bill through that really had no business coming for a vote.  You will doubtless recall the whole “deemed passed” business, and the entire fiasco of passing a bill originating in the Senate as though it had been the House bill all along, in order to sidestep the ordinary legislative process.  This is what wrinkled Boehner’s shorts.

The fact that the government was taking over one-sixth of the US economy was not the salient issue in his view.  The fact that the American people would now see the intentional destruction of private health insurance and markets was not the cause of his tears.  The idea that the government could claim to be regulating non-existent commerce, precisely because it did not exist had not been the source of his discomfort.  No, none of these bother John Boehner so much as the way in which the bill was passed.  Boehner had been concerned about process.  With his focus on the employment situation, one would think Boehner could see that Obama-care is itself a job-killer, and for that reason alone, there would be good cause for celebration if the law is overturned by the court, but as usual, Boehner is worried about process and politics.

If you want to know why it is that John Boehner is urging restraint should Obama-care be struck down, it’s simply because he’s trying to look at the political ramifications.  In general, it’s true that nobody likes a sore loser, and few more like an obnoxious winner, but in this case, I believe Boehner and the rest of the political calculators are missing the point.  Nearly three-fourths of the American people believe this law is unconstitutional.  Three-fourths!  If this is even close to accurate, then ball-spiking may not present any particular political dangers, but it also may actually assist Republicans in the Fall.  After all, conservatives can now point to the fact that we do have a limited government, despite the usurping proclivities of Barack Obama and the Democrats, and they can further point to all the reasons why any Republican president who would presumably appoint conservative Supreme Court justices must be preferable to the current president who will continue the trend of appointing justices obnoxious to the US Constitution.

The simple fact is that when a people overcomes governmental treachery, and what this author views as treasonous legislation, there is every good justification to celebrate, or “spike the ball.”  If John Boehner wasn’t such a predictable, unfailing beltway insider, he too would understand that if this law is turned back by the courts, it will be every reason for the celebration of those who have fought tirelessly against this law, from it’s introduction to its passage, and even beforehand.  While John Boehner has whined about being “one-half of one-third of the government,” he has failed to make a stand on behaf of liberty.  Instead, he’s been a plodding, tepid Speaker of the House, and he’s done nothing to risk his position, and I believe that’s the trouble:  Boehner is risk-averse to a pathological extent.  He’s been more apt to stick it to his own party than he has been willing to do battle with the Democrats in the House, or face off against Majority leader Harry Reid(D-NV) in the Senate or the resident at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

All of this talk assumes that the bill will be struck down in part, or in whole, but we won’t know that until the decision finally comes out, sometime later this month.  What we must learn from this is that should a Republican majority re-convene next January, we conservatives must exert maximum pressure on our respective House members to ensure that John Boehner is not retained as the Speaker of the House.  We simply cannot tolerate this brand of hand-wringing leadership, devoid of the passion for liberty we conservatives share, and to have a Speaker telling his members that they should not celebrate when victorious is abominable.  Of course, maybe that’s the problem Boehner has with all of this:  If the Supreme Court strikes down Obama-care, Boehner has a whole new problem:  How does he manage to re-write the law, if it’s to be written at all?  Billions upon billions of dollars have already been spent in terms of the implementation of the law.  That money cannot be un-spent.  Many things will be left in limbo as a result, and you can bet that left in place, Boehner will fail to pursue the righting of things, particularly if Obama manages to beat the presumptive Republican nominee this Fall.

We need leadership, and that leadership must press advantages, politically as well as legislatively, but to do so requires a principled view of the issues at hand.  Boehner’s unwillingness to do a victory dance in the end-zone signifies that he doesn’t understand what moves the grass roots, and average, ordinary Americans, who will be thrilled to hear of it should the court strike down Obama-care.  It will be the first sign in more than four years that government is finally being brought under control, and that is most definitely something to be celebrated, but if John Boehner can’t understand that, and thinks it improper, I suggest he do what he does best.

What He Does Best?

 

Romney Appointment Evinces Healthcare Intentions

Tuesday, June 5th, 2012

Romney and Leavitt: Healthcare BestFriendsForever?

Monday, NRO published a brief piece referencing a Politico article discussing Mitt Romney’s pick to head his transition team, if he should win, Former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt.   The Leavitt appointment raised eyebrows in conservative circles, even getting a mention on the Rush Limbaugh show, because his company has profited handsomely from the start-up of the state Health exchanges under the auspices of Obama-care.  That’s right, Leavitt loves the state exchanges, as he’s cashed in on them, and while some have urged me to drop my opposition to Romney and climb aboard his campaign bus, or at least occupy the kennel strapped to its roof, I’ve been unwilling and this is one of the reasons for my resistance.  I have no interest in electing another statist to the White House, but more than this, I really don’t wish to be in league with the profiteers who are working overtime to make sure that whomever occupies the White House next year, we will be universally shafted with Obamacare.

NRO picked up on the following in the Politico piece, and it’s significant:

Leavitt has said some relatively positive things about certain elements of Obama’s health reform law, suggesting earlier this year that “Obamacare” empowers the HHS secretary “to do certain things that are clearly aimed at trying to move us in the right direction.”

[Leavitt chief aide Rich] McKeown, who still works with Leavitt at his Utah-based health care consultancy, acknowledged that the former governor does not want to undo one key part of the controversial legislation [Obamacare].

“We believe that the exchanges are the solution to small business insurance market and that’s gotten us sideways with some conservatives,” he said.

The exchanges are not only a matter of principle for Leavitt — they’re also a cash cow.

The size of his firm, Leavitt Partners, doubled in the year after the bill was signed as they won contracts to help states set up the exchanges funded by the legislation.

One of the things I warned you about the GOP establishment is that there are those who have not only political sympathies with the left, but also a number of people who have learned how to profit from the big-government mechanisms the left invariably puts in place.  These people are nefarious, and in the end, they always undercut conservatives and conservatism.  They’re more interested in the deal, and making a buck than in standing on any principle.  Conservatives are right to worry when they see Romney appoint somebody to his transition team who is such a thoroughly enthusiastic advocate for the exchanges being set up by Obama-care.  Let’s not mince words:  There is a class of Republicans who are willing to make money off of governmental actions without respect to ideology, philosophy, or any consideration beyond their own bottom lines, and by all appearances, Leavitt is one of these.

Leavitt is close to Romney, having been Governor of Utah, particularly when Romney was working with the Salt Lake City Olympics, and there can be little doubt that Romney’s choice for transition team may indicate some of the back-scratching that goes on in politics, but I also believe it reflects part of the problem with Mitt Romney.  He’s not a conservative, and he’s probably going to work to keep at least some parts of Obama-care, as I’ve contended right along, and he’s effectively admitted it in his previous statements.  Once you realize this, it’s an elementary matter, and the importance of the controversy over Leavitt’s appointment to a prospective Romney transition team tells the tale.  Back in February, Florida Attorney General and Romney supporter Pam Bondi told us the same thing.

Ladies and gentlemen, we’re in real trouble here.  If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn Obama-care in its entirety, we’re never going to see it repealed in full.  The Romney crowd simply won’t do it, because they’re making too much money from setting up the state exchanges, and in the final analysis, we won’t be able to get out from beneath the heap they’ll dump on us all.  Much as many conservatives have always suspected that Romney would oversee the full implementation of a program that is just like Obama-care, for all intents and purposes, we must now do what I have always stated we would be forced to do if Romney somehow manages to win the presidency:  We will have to play self-defense, not merely against the left, but also against a Romney administration.

 

Scathing New Ad Reveals Romney

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

There’s been a new ad campaign started in Florida by the SuperPAC, Winning Our Future, that is backing Newt Gingrich.  It takes a close look at Mitt Romney’s record on Romney-care while Governor of Massachusetts.  The PAC has reportedly spent $6 million on pushing this ad all over the state of Florida, in a bid to show voters this side of Romney’s record.

Here is their latest ad:

Romney’s Real Intentions For Obama-Care?

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

Many people wonder why Mitt Romney isn’t taken seriously by conservatives, when he claims to be one of us, but when one examines what Romney’s advisers are saying, it’s clear when listening to former Senator Norm Coleman, one of his campaign flacks, that there is actually no desire to repeal Obama-Care.  Think Progress, a truly leftist group, reporting on an interview with Coleman, and what the article demonstrates is not merely that there’s no real appetite for repealing Obama-care, but also that as I warned you, there’s no notion of taking the Senate, because everything said is in the context of a Romney presidency, and a static Congress.

You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president,” Coleman told BioCentury This Week television in interview that aired on Sunday. “You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.” [...]

“If there’s a Republican president, what you’ll see is states getting waivers … granted and then starting again, making sure that we lower costs, which this act hasn’t done, while we provide better access,” Coleman said.

Still, he said, the law “may collapse” on its own if the Supreme Court strikes down the requirement that everyone have insurance. “I don’t think the act works financially … if you don’t have the individual mandate, because your costs are going to go so far through the roof.”

Once you understand the implications, you will realize the geniuses in the Romney camp don’t really believe we’ll be able to repeal Obama-Care(and in fact don’t want to,) so instead, what they’ll settle for is mucking around in it but stiffing us with a system that will inevitably lead to a single payer system.  This flies in the face of Romney’s promises to repeal Obamacare, and there’s no reason on Earth to think he will follow through. That’s seen by his insiders as a campaign promise he has no intention of upholding.

Challenge to Conservatives: Explain Romney’s Electability

Monday, January 16th, 2012

Can He Win?

I’ve grown somewhat impatient with people who claim to be conservative telling me why Willard “Mitt” Romney is electable.  Frankly, I think some of them are being disingenuous, or worse, have deluded themselves, but I don’t think the facts support their claims in any case.  What seems to be the argument is that Romney can capture moderates and independents in the general election.  It may be pointless to argue the matter, but the reasons offered for this are his business record and the fact that he governed a very blue state.  Effectively, what I’m being told is that because he’s one part Dukakis and one part Rockefeller, he can defeat Barack Obama.  I dispute this claim, because I know that moderates and independents are not so much ideological in their voting as they are risk-averse, and the one characteristic of a candidate against which they react with the greatest vigor is flip-flopping, or inconsistency.  If they’re offered two choices that are nearly the same in ideological terms, they will tend to choose the one who has remained most consistent.  It’s for this reason that Mitt Romney will not defeat Barack Obama.

Whatever else you may think about Obama, he has been ideologically consistent throughout most of his presidency.  Mitt Romney, by contrast, has flipped and flopped and moved all over the place on a host of issues. He’s changed his position on so many issues that it’s now difficult to catalog, but one of his biggest problems is an issue on which he has not directly flip-flopped, but on which the inconsistency shines through most glaringly of all.  The matter of Obama-care is a big issue for the electorate, since more than 60% of Americans still oppose it.  The problem is, Romney can’t use it.  He enacted a program that has been called “the model for Obama-care” while governor of Massachusetts.  Independents and moderates may not be strictly ideological, but they know an inconsistency as glaring as that when they see it.

On the one hand, Romney promises to issue a waiver to any state that wants one, but what did he do to his own home-state of Massachusetts?  Did anybody there get waivers?  No, that program is now bankrupting the state, and you can imagine that this too will come back to haunt him.  More, there is no known provision in Obama-care that actually permits waivers, and while Obama has been issuing some waivers, it’s clear that if he should leave office, there would be immediate legal challenges to such waivers.  He has also admitted that he would effectively reshape Obama-care, but not seek to repeal it, though it depends on the day of the week how he’ll answer. The best I can gather is that if Congress sends him a repeal bill, he might sign it, but that’s a long way from a done deal.

It is for this reason that Romney will be neutered on the matter of Obama-care, and as you saw in 2010, that’s still a hot issue with voters.  To surrender an issue of this type, where so much energy is on your side, and so thoroughly identified with your opponent is to yield the election if it’s anywhere near close.  Independents and moderates will note that Romney’s own plan wasn’t far from Obama’s, and that will be the end of Mitt Romney in 2012.

We’ve been over most of this ground many times, and rather than further pound it into the ground, I’d like to know from conservatives how you think Romney will walk back this inconsistency.  I’d like to read your responses in terms of how he can win a campaign in which he will be forced to yield one of Republicans’ strongest issues against Obama.  I’m not trying to put you on the spot, but I am interested to know.  Remember, it’s all well and good to tell me he can capture the nomination, and he might well do so, but it’s another thing to argue that he’ll be able to draw a clear distinction between himself and Barack Obama.  I don’t believe he can do so in a positive sense, and that the only distinctions voters will notice is that he is another rich guy who can’t relate to voters.

At this point, you shouldn’t be imagining how he will side-step his inconsistencies, because he can’t, but instead explain to me how he’ll overcome the campaign Obama will put up.  It will consist of class envy, that works on independents and moderates, and it will be pointing out his flip-flops, all of them, that works on independents and moderates.  It will be the revelations about which you do not yet know concerning Mr. Romney’s tax returns that he still refuses to release.  It will be other issues dealing with Romney’s financial backing, and it will be every manner of thing I can scarcely imagine.  On McLaughlin Group this week, Eleanor Clift hinted at what is coming, and you can bet it will get worse from there.  I will bet you that there will be a commercial done from the point of view of a dog, being loaded into a pet carrier on roof-top, forced to endure the wind and rain and violence of a ride atop the car, with the narrator saying: “If Mitt will treat his own family dog this way, how will he treat you?”  This by itself will be good for five points in the polls. I note this because my own bride said of him when this story crossed the wire: “Cold-hearted ba$$(@!#)”

So again, my question to you is simplicity itself: Can you explain to me what it is that Mitt Romney offers that recommends him to independents and moderates as better than Barack Obama?  If you can’t answer me, how will you answer them?  How will Romney?  If you nominate him, that’s fine, but I don’t think most of you want to do so. I think most of you are like me, looking around for better options still.  The problem is that if Romney is our nominee, we will have difficulty making the case even to the Republican base and Tea Party to energize and unite behind him, and many will simply stay home.  He will never bring a single Ron Paul supporter along, as far as I can discern, although there are those who argue none of these can do that.  What I am asking you is for an explanation as to how his supposed electability translates into victory in November 2012, and the problem is that I don’t think you can, unless Obama completely implodes, which he won’t.  Make your case for Romney independent of any any assumptions about events that you think might help him.  Don’t assume 8.5% unemployment, but assume 7.5% and declining.  Don’t assume all of the factors you’ve been told to consider.  Stack them up side-by-side and tell me how Romney differentiates himself from Obama to the degree that risk-averse independents and moderates who voted for Obama last time now cross over. Tell me  how Romney motivates the GOP base better than John McCain, who would have lost by twice the margin if not for Sarah Palin.  Tell me, because I can’t figure it out.  I’m doing the math, and it looks pretty abysmal.