Posts Tagged ‘Twitter’

Donald Trump Finally Gets With Program: Repeal Now, Replace Later

Friday, June 30th, 2017

 

repealnowreplacelater_ftAt long last, I think President Trump may finally be getting the message clearly from the American people, because his latest tweet on the matter makes it clear that he wants something done, and soon. “…immediately REPEAL, and REPLACE at a later date!” That’s what I’ve said since the outset.  Two years ago, the House and Senate each passed a basically clean repeal bill, and sent it to Obama, who naturally vetoed it.  One doesn’t need to be a cynic to suspect that many of the Republicans who passed that bill did so because they knew Obama would veto it.  Now that they have a President who might actually sign it into law, they’ve come up with all these permutations of a replacement law that effectively do nothing to rid us of Obama-care.

Now that “show votes” won’t cut the mustard, and they’re actually going to need to produce something, a large contingent of the Republican majorities in the House and Senate have suddenly gone soft on Obama-care.  It’s time to hold these rotten, lying scoundrels to account.  For years, in cycle after cycle, beginning with the elections of 2010, they have promised us that they would strip Obama-care out of the law, bit by bloody bit, but now that it’s time to deliver, we find the sickening truth: Many of the House and Senate Republicans had been using this as a mere rallying cry for re/election to office, but had no intentions to actually repeal the horrible, freedom-stripping monstrosity that is Obama-care.

President Trump had talked a good deal about “repeal and replace,” both during the campaign and since, and it was one of the reasons my support for Mr. Trump has remained less than whole-hearted.  If he can manage to completely rid us of Obama-care, he will manage to gain the more active support of some reluctant conservatives. After all, this is one of the most devastating pieces of legislation in generations, and it has done more to kill jobs and people than any legislation in my lifetime.  The tax burdens and redistribution of wealth explicit in Obama-care are killing the country.  The law, formally known as the Affordable Care Act, is simply a Trojan horse for the worst predatory actions of a centralized government run amok in the history of our country.  It is fitting then, as we enter the Independence Day weekend, that we begin to address one of the worst attacks on American independence in the history of the nation.

It’s time to repeal Obama-care, outright, and without replacement.  If it’s to be replaced with something to address concerns at some future date, that’s fine, and we can have those arguments then, but no more of this holding Obama-care over our heads as they try to get something only slightly less obnoxious to our liberties through the Congress.  Repeal NOW, and replace later!  That’s what should have been this President’s intention from the outset, and while I’m disappointed that it’s taken this long for him to see it, I believe in this case that it’s a case of “better late than never.”

One of the things that surfaced this week is the sad story, heart-rending, and insanely outrageous story of a little baby, Charlie Gard, who will be left to die by virtue of the National Health Service in the UK, and the Human Rights Panel of the European Union.  The child has a rare, almost always lethal condition that is killing him, and his parents raised more than $1.4 million to finance an experimental treatment in the US, but the EU’s Human Rights Commission(a.k.a. “Death Panel”) has determined that they may not take their child to the US for this treatment.

All of my life, I have heard the complaint of various leftists advocating on behalf of government-run healthcare that conservatives and libertarians who wish to rely upon the free market are cruel and heartless, but what could be more cruel than a government entity essentially sentencing your baby to death when you had raised the money to try one last thing to save his or her young life?  What is more hideous is that under Obama-care, and soon, if the leftists succeed in moving us to a single-payer system, this is what we’ll have here in America as well:  An unsustainable health financing system that kills off the most vulnerable among us, whether or not one has the ability to pay.

This is the ugly secret of all Marxist healthcare systems, anywhere on the globe, including Obama-care: They promise free healthcare for all, but in truth, nothing is free, and all people wind up dependent upon and enslaved by the system.   All choice and discretion is removed.  Out-of-program health expenditures are forbidden.  New treatments and drugs are aborted in order to fund current demands.  In the end, what you get is a “free healthcare” system that is neither free nor “healthcare.”

This is why Obama-care must be repealed, fully, and at once.  I’m contacting all my members of the Congress, and those in leadership in both houses, to Repeal NOW and worry about replacement later.  I’m glad President Trump is finally seeing it this way.  We must demand our members support the same legislation that was vetoed by Obama in 2015, and we must demand it at once!

 

 

Shock and Awe Palin-Style

Sunday, April 28th, 2013

Irrelevant?

Many of you are Twitter members, but some of you are not, and those who aren’t may not know or even quite realize what all the fuss is about.  On Saturday, all the country’s media elites and most-favored-politicians gathered for another iteration of the White House Correspondents Dinner, headlined by none other than Barack Hussein Obama, as is traditional for these events.  While the DC elite gathered to laugh and clink glasses, telling bad jokes, the country is burning, and the sad diminution of the nation continues apace, thanks in large measure to the gang of anointed geniuses assembled for the event.  Chris Christie was there, and all the fawning celebrities, and it was simply a wondrous display of how in Washington DC, no matter how awful things may be in the rest of the country, and without respect to the endless deprivations outside of their “boomtown,” the show must go on, and in keeping with the tradition of the Obama White House, the party never ends.  Then it happened. She happened.  Without warning, across the airwaves and through their Twitter feeds, arrived a message that left the tuxedo-clad drooling-class aghast and in shock:

One would have thought that Sarah Palin had thrown a stink-bomb into the room.  In a flurry of tweets from the geniuses assembled, and from the throng of leftists on Twitter who saw an opportunity to hurl f-bombs and b-words at Sarah Palin, the shock and awe of the simple statement seemed to leave the whole world atwitter.  Yes, in the minutes and hours that followed, the entirety of the Twitter-verse erupted into mass commentary.  There were cat-calls of “hypocrisy” from the left, and nasty “Caribou Barbie” and “Trixie Klondike” remarks from the chattering-class, but there was also a fantastic array of Palin-supporters who took delight in the comments, and many an average soul out here in flyover country who remarked that it was nice that somebody, somewhere “got it.”  Here’s a favorite:

(For the record, at this hour, the number of re-tweets is over 3000 and growing. Irrelevant???)

Whatever you may think of the tweet’s context, timing, or substance, what must we conclude from its reach and impact?  After all, many of the critics of the remark spent most of their one-hundred-forty characters explaining in some form that Sarah Palin is “irrelevant.”  If that were so, and she means nothing whatever to the powers that be, or to the zombies of the left, why is it that each and every time she Tweets the first little thing, they descend upon her like the inexorable march of the undead on a feeding frenzy?  In point of fact, if she were nearly so “irrelevant” as they seem to contend, she would receive none of these responses, positive or negative.   There wouldn’t be tens of thousands of tweets and re-tweets in support of her message, and there surely wouldn’t be the degree or extent of the negative backlash against her.  Simply put, however, I think it’s safe to say that some of the negative responses from the chattering class were an expression of envy, constituting a desperate attempt to find relevancy of their own.

For those who wonder about the real power of Sarah Palin, it is evinced by the uproar that invariably follows her remarks on Twitter.  For those confused by all of the uproar, having believed the media meme that Sarah Palin is irrelevant, this must come as a complete surprise.  How could anybody so “irrelevant” garner this reaction by what is an otherwise pretty standard bit of Twitter commentary?  Was it her use of the term “Assclowns?”  Seems fitting, given her target.  After all, had one of us tweeted this remark, it would likely fall into the vast chasm of Twitter history never to be seen or read again, but it is the fact that she tweeted it, and that she dared comment on the drooling glitterati at the White House Correspondents Dinner that made it into a Twitter event.  Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but don’t believe the spin: “Irrelevant” is not a word that applies, and the ongoing pursuit by the walking dead on Twitter proves it.

Meanwhile, fans, supporters, and average common-sense Americans are laughing in sheer delight, and at this moment, the re-tweeting of her remark continues unabated.

Mark Levin Tweets Disdain for Romney

Thursday, December 22nd, 2011

The Great One!

In a post that give further evidence for the reason Mitt Romney can’t seem to break 25% in the primary fight, on Wednesday evening, Mark Levin “tweeted” a mouthful on the social networking site. New Yorker Magazine’s Jonathan Chait wrote something about Romney that caused Levin some heartburn, not because it is false, but because it is undeniably true.  Levin, annoyed by the underlying facts quickly posted on Facebook, and via Twitter:

@marklevinshow  Romney is really starting to piss me off. The lib site is, dare I say, right. http://fb.me/QB3Qryjy

The link is to an article that appears in the New Yorker’ Daily Intel section, detailing Romney’s flip-flop on the Iraq war, but more importantly, the author of the piece, Jonathan Chait, explains Romney’s reversal on the issue of Iraq in terms of political expedience aimed at gaining support from the conservative base of the Republican party.  Chait seems to approve, at least in terms of his disdain for conservatives, and he cheerfully reports that Romney takes some positions as a way to make peace with the base. Chait writes:

The thing I’ve always found endearing and (to some degree) comforting about Mitt Romney is that his flip-flops betray pure contempt for the Republican base. He treats them like angry children, and their pet issues as emotionally driven symbols of cultural division rather than as serious positions. Four years ago, conservatives were enraged that liberals would question Bush’s handling of foreign policy, so Romney was defending the decision to go to war and promising to “double Guantanamo.”

Yes, that’s right, this liberal writer likes Romney for his willingness to double-cross conservatives.  None in the base of the party should be the least bit upset by this, because it’s true, and because what Chait sees as evidence of a betrayal of the base is accurate, but unlike you, Chait’s gleeful about it.  He characterizes conservatives in the Republican party as angry, emotional children to be herded like so many cats.  Undoubtedly, this is a great reflection of how Romney does feel about conservatives, and it’s one more reason to discount him as a potential president.

Another interesting part of the article arrives parenthetically:

(It made zero sense as a policy position and could be understood only as an expression of culture-war solidarity.) Likewise, conservatives are now outraged over Obamacare, so Romney promises to repeal Obamacare.

It will surely warm Jonathan Chait’s heart to know that Romney has no intention of keeping the repeal promise either, as we’ve recently learned. Chait wasn’t attempting to expose Romney to the conservative base, but instead to caution his own readers because he intended them to understand why Romney is unpredictable and untrustworthy:

Nothing about Romney’s attempts to ingratiate himself with the right hint even slightly of genuine conversion. It is patronizing appeasement. Of course, none of this tells us the really crucial thing, which is what promises Romney would actually keep if elected. But at least it offers the modest comfort that Romney knows better.

This is the way conservatives and Tea Party folk are viewed by the establishment and Northeast liberal crowd in both parties, and Chait’s assessment is simply his view of Romney’s willingness to lie in order to fool conservatives.  Of course, in Chait’s view, that’s a virtue, but what this provides you is real insight into what they think about us, out here in “flyover country.”  Levin is right to be angry, not at Chait, but at Romney, because it’s becoming increasingly clear that Romney shares many views with the likes of Mr. Chait.

Note: In other developments, Romney continues to avoid and decline a debate with Gingrich, and he is still using surrogates to do his dirty work against the former Speaker of the House.  Romney excuses the attack ads launched by his Super PAC by saying effectively,  “it’s politics,” and shrugging it off as the nature of the beast, while pretending his official detachment from that organization prevents him from expressing any sentiments about the negative nature of the ads.  At the same time, he is sending out Chris Christie as his attack dog, and this too presents real questions about the sincerity of Romney: He’s willing to see the mud fly, but he likes to keep his own hands clean.  It’s small wonder Levin and others are growing tired of Romney’s tactics: He’s a coward, and nothing is worse where conservatives are concerned in this election cycle.  There’s something disgustingly ironic about a politician sending out others to do his dirty work who then suggests his opponents should get out of the kitchen if they can’t take the heat of dirty politics, while relaxing in the shade provided by Chris Christie.

Ahem.