Posts Tagged ‘Socialism’

It is always amusing when a Socialist objects to central control — a rare thing indeed.

And yet here is Bernie on the proposed Puerto Rico debt bailout bill currently up for a vote in Congress:

In a letter to Senate colleagues released Monday, Sanders rips the agreement to restructure the island’s $70 billion in debt…

In particular, Sanders takes issue with a new oversight board created under the legislation to oversee Puerto Rico’s finances because the majority of the seven-member panel…The board will have expansive power over Puerto Rico’s economy. <Politico.com, link>

And now for Bernie’s strong statement against central control:

In my view, we must never give an unelected control board the power to make life and death decisions for the people of Puerto Rico without any meaningful input from them at all.

That’s right, Bernie! Welcome to the side of liberty, where have you been?

It is refreshing to see a candidate for president vigorously opposing a powerful, unelected Board whose members are appointed by Washington officials (Democrats and Republicans each get Board seats that would control Puerto Rico).

But, Bernie, I ask you: did you oppose the IPAB inside of Obamacare?

Do you remember Barack Obama’s IPAB?

As I wrote in 2012, the Affordable Care Act includes something called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, a 15-member board that is appointed by the president. Its stated goal is to control Medicare spending. How will it do that? From Cato.org, my emphasis added:

When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB “proposal” requires at a minimum that the Houseand the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB’s edicts in court<Cato.org, link >

This is fascism (or socialism, if you prefer): a 15-member panel, unelected, makes decisions that automatically become law and control the amount of care Americans will receive.

IPAB’s unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not. In some circumstances, just one political party or even one individual would have full command of IPAB’s lawmaking powers. IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.

As of this writing, the IPAB remains a part of Obamacare. It’s still in there, though some Democrats have since come to their senses and urged for repeal of it (link).

So I ask you, Bern baby Bern, where do you stand on the draconian, Barack Obama IPAB?




Read Full Post »

So it turns out that Barack Obama just told some young people in Argentina that they should not get caught up in the difference between capitalism and communism/socialism <Washington Times, link>.

So often in the past there’s been a sharp division between left and right, between capitalist and communist or socialist. And especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate, right? Oh, you know, you’re a capitalist Yankee dog, and oh, you know, you’re some crazy communist that’s going to take away everybody’s property.
And I mean, those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works.

So mr. Obama is promoting the notion that the differences between capitalism and communism are merely “intellectual” and not affecting the every day life of the average citizen?

But let’s not be surprised by this sophistry — this is a man, after all, who told Americans on many occasions that he would redistribute wealth and pursue an openly statist agenda.

The good news is that there is a great video on the difference between capitalism and communism / socialism — it’s fun, informative, and downright entertaining as it lays waste to the nonsense being spewed by so many Liberals and “Progressives” who “hate capitalism” and now say that we should all “resist capitalism”.

If you have friends who fail to understand what capitalism is and why it is better than socialism and communism, then try to get them to watch this entertaining discussion of it.

If they watch to the end, they just might start to understand.


Read Full Post »

I saw the following opening paragraph in the latest news coming out of Venezuela, home to the former Hugo Chavez regime and the present ongoing Socialist regime of his successor, and I didn’t bother to read the rest of the story (because those of us who pay attention to history already know how the story ends):

With long, everyday waits in line to buy milk or toilet paper, Venezuela’s economic crisis is proving ever more painful, as President Nicolas Maduro’s socialist government struggles with the inflation-wracked, collapsing economy. <Yahoo News, link>

Another central government failure in attempting to manage a large economy, and another chapter in the human resistance to learning from past failed experiments.

Chavez Socialism

Will Socialism be tried again in countries around the world?


Will the outcome be any better than what the poor citizens of Venezuela are being forced to live through?


Will American Liberals and “Progressives” learn anything from this latest tragic example of central planning?

Read Full Post »

I am in a rapture at having seen The Grand Budapest Hotel, a movie by Wes Anderson.

Peter_Strain The_Grand_Budapest_Hotel

It is a master work: a suspenseful story, artfully told, and also a brilliant exposition of the difference between high civilization and the depths of human depravity and how the two are constantly wrestling for the human soul.

Like the tides of the oceans, human society rhythmically rises (Periclean Athens, Republican Rome, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Germany in the early 20th century), and falls (Imperial Rome, the Middle Ages, 20th century fascism in Europe, Russia, and Japan).

These forces exist also in each one of us: the good, and the bad, swirling around all the time. Life is about leaning in one direction or the other, and from this collective leaning, civilization is made or destroyed.

Wes Answerson, who wrote and directed The Grand Budapest Hotel, has given us the joy of a main character — Gustave, played by Ralph Fiennes — who is the personification of civilization, and what a beautiful personification it is.

<Spoiler Alert>

Joseph Campbell's master work.

Joseph Campbell’s master work.

This is for many reasons, including that he exhibits and practices a code of living based on uncompromisingly high standards of excellence, courtesy, manners, higher learning, joie de vivre, love, loyalty, grace under pressure, and courage in the face of direct and indirect challenges to all these qualities. And this is the genius of the film: Gustave is not just cultured, he is severely, brutally tested by the dark forces within all human beings, including himself. And he triumphs, and I love a happy ending. His is a hero’s journey, as Joseph Campbell wrote about definitively (if you have not read The Hero With A Thousand Faces, you must do so immediately, or at least start with his interviews with Bill Moyers in The Power of Myth).

In the hero’s journey, a person is cast out of his comfort zone (voluntarily or by force or trickery) and into a series of trials. He faces the trials as best he can, and eventually returns to his starting point, hopefully intact and with higher consciousness, but not necessarily so.

Gustave’s journey in this movie is a perfect model of this archetype, and perhaps Wes Anderson created him with this intention. Screenwriters are generally aware of these archetypes and you’ll find them in just about every movie that gets made, but the genius of Anderson’s artistry is how well he did it here. The lesson is quite clear, but not so much that you can’t be swept away by the madcap events of the story.

I will also admit to loving this movie as well for the way it speaks to our present moment in the United States and the world. In 2014 we find our civilization under daily assault and our humanity being tested sorely. And we are losing.

But back to this wonderful piece of art.

Gustave’s Bona Fides

Gustave is, as the narrator says towards the end, “civilization itself”. Anderson reinforces this in the character in so many ways, including giving him the attributes mentioned above.

But also in some other key ways, such as Gustave’s refusal to be a victim during his jail time. He fights, gets beaten up, but gives as much as he gets; he is such a long way from life in his beloved hotel, and yet his spirit is unbowed and he never loses or surrenders his agency.

He continuously displays courtesy and manners even in the face of openly hostile people (or people who only appeared to be hostile, but then turned out to be allies when he needed them the most) and in the most abhorrent situations, such as after he emerges from a sewer through which he escaped from the jail.

He is willing to put himself in harm’s way to protect his vulnerable charge, Zero (the lobby boy).


Uniforms, art, beauty, standards, a rose, a partnership

And he is also capable of weak moments and apologizing when appropriate. In a key exchange, he verbally abuses Zero, clearly as a result of his own exhaustion and suffering at that point in the story. But when Zero stands up for himself, Gustave realizes his error and apologizes in a heart-felt manner. I found this to be very important for the character: no one is perfect, and indeed Civilization is not perfect. But which way does a man lean? Towards cruelty, or towards compassion and human connection?

The Decline of Civilization

I absolutely love the way The Grand Budapest Hotel portrays the decline of civilization (the era depicted, a facsimile of 1930s Europe during the rise of Hitler, could stand in for aspects of our present moment). Anderson conveys the decline by using the same motif twice: our main characters, Gustave and Zero, are traveling together in a rail car through the beautiful countryside of Europe, and each time they are subjected to a harsh interrogation by hyper-aggressive law enforcement / military figures who board the train to check passports.

A civilized ride, and then challenge.

A civilized ride, and then challenge.

In both cases, Zero does not have proper papers, and this provokes actual physical violence against him and Gustave (after Gustave, out of loyalty to his companion and with no hope of overpowering the adversaries, attempts to intervene).

But in the first instance, the police chief, also on the train, catches up with the commotion and calls off his dogs: he knows Gustave, and such sadistic and impersonal treatment will not do. The opposite of bureaucracy, in other words.

The second instance takes place much later in the story, and plays out very differently <spoiler alert again>. We see Zero knocked unconscious by the butt-end of a rifle, and later learn that Gustave is shot and killed in the aftermath of the episode.

In these two renditions of the motif, we see the same high culture (Gustave demonstrating loyalty and courage against sadistic, violent men and overwhelmingly bad odds), but not the same outcome because something crucial is missing the second time around. The police chief and his human connection to a particular citizen are gone, and the result is a spasm of violence and the senseless death of a beloved man.

This is why central governments, manned by armies of bureaucrats, are dangerous: there is no humanity in them, and without humanity, the raw struggle for survival is all that is left (the kill-or-be-killed nature of the animal world).

Joseph Campbell called it “the end of life and the beginning of survival” (he was quoting a great Indian chief, who was cautioning against abandonment of spirituality).

This is a way of saying that human life is not life unless it includes love and compassion (unity) and transcends the animal world of eating, fighting, and fucking (survival). The zero-sum game of survival is truly hell on earth.

The Rule of Law

And while we are on the topic of the Decline of Civilization, would you believe that a Hollywood filmmaker could make one of the most powerful cases for the Rule of Law that any of us has seen in recent years?

Well believe it, because one of the most powerful narrative arcs in the movie (for me anyway) is that of the attorney, played by Jeff Goldblum.


An extraordinarily rich woman has died (or was murdered, apparently), and her will must be administered — no easy job with dozens of hungry relatives circling like vultures throughout the proceedings. This falls to the attorney, and just look at the way Anderson presents him in the above picture.

Three piece suit. Surrounded by hundreds of books. A thorough and exhaustive reading of hundreds of documents to sort out the estate. These are not mere props, as the man’s conduct and character match his surroundings. This is a man who has respect for due process, for hard work, for not taking short cuts, even under pressure.

And oh, does he get pressure. The most aggressive would-be heir, played by Adrian Brody, challenges him in a fundamental way by asking him the question “Aren’t you supposed to be representing US?” To which he responds, “…actually no, strictly speaking I represent the deceased…” (or words to that effect). An attorney must always remember who his client is, and this one does very clearly, and the answer is not at all what the bully wants to hear.

Two violent men confront Civilization.

Two violent men confront Civilization.

And so he escalates his bullying and demands that the attorney bend the rules. His reply to the demand is simple and straight forward: No, I cannot do that. I am an attorney and I must follow the law.

This is civilization. This is what keeps societies from destroying themselves in an orgy of street violence.

The Goldblum character is a beautiful rendition of it, and Anderson then shows just what is at stake in today’s American culture: the attorney is stalked by Jopling, a murderous thug played by Willem Defoe, and flees into a museum (I’m sure this was no accident, as a museum is another institution of culture and learning). Jopling murders him in cold blood inside the museum, and it is no leap to say that Jopling’s character and those of his ilk (might makes right) represent the murder of culture as much as the murder of the man.


Murdering the Rule of Law.

Anderson is saying that the Rule of Law is important, but that it is also vulnerable (the attorney’s persian cat is another nice touch — the law is strong, but delicate). Without it, civilization cannot survive.

The Rule of Law: Refined. Strong. Delicate.

The Rule of Law: Refined. Strong. Delicate.

Again I will admit that this hits home for me, as I watch our country get dragged down a path of selective enforcement of the laws (or none at all in some cases) by a president who does not respect the law of this land. Or rather it would be more correct to say that he respects the laws he likes, and ignores or tramples on the laws that he does not like. His actions bludgeon the foundation of our civilization.

In Closing

Gustave’s journey begins at the hotel, where he is happy and fulfilled in his role as Concierge extraordinaire, and then moves into his trials, including a violent stint in jail, an audacious escape, a confrontation with Jopling in which he and Zero are the improbably brave pursuers and in which he faces death and recites poetry before he makes it through to safety, and a successful trial that allows him the inheritance, and then back to the hotel where his joie de vivre may flourish again (the hero’s return).

Grand Budapest Joie de Vivre

Joie de Vivre uber alles

Watching the complete cycle was thrilling and a joy.

And the movie is important.

As I debate various members of my family about the increasing consolidation of central power by our government and the terrible consequences of it that we are already experiencing every day, I am constantly met with a kind of mushy indifference (“all presidents do this stuff”, etc etc).

All I can say is that humanity has spent many more years living under tyranny than freedom, making the pull towards survival relatively more powerful (and the sadism and cruelty that come with it).

Luckily for us, our American Experiment has blessed us in this lifetime with a truly glorious era.

But we are losing it.

To my Liberal friends I say: if you don’t want the butt of a rifle smashing into your foreheads, open your eyes to the men and women, including Barack Obama, who would gladly put all our necks into so many yokes.

Read Full Post »

Liberals are not just wrong-headed about their policy prescriptions.

They also kill people with the implementation of their ideas.

Barack Obama, an extreme Liberal, or perhaps it would be more correct to say Marxist central planner, has proven this again through the gross mismanagement of the Veterans Administration, a federal government institution.

His administration is under mounting pressure from Capitol Hill to address troubling allegations of treatment delays and preventable deaths at VA hospitals. The VA Inspector General’s office said late Tuesday that 26 facilities are being investigated nationwide — up from 10 just last week — including a Phoenix hospital where 40 veterans allegedly died while waiting for treatment and staff there kept a secret list of patients waiting for appointments to hide delays in care. <source>

Yes indeed, when you mix central planning with something as personal as health care, you end up killing people.

Does this mean Obamacare will kill people? Of course it does, and we didn’t need the current VA Hospital scandal to know this.

But why? Why does government bureaucracy fail and end up killing people?

The VA scandal is instructive in answering this: there is no meaningful accountability inside of and outside of government bureaucracies.

Oh sure, there may be accountability to this or that “patron” in the patronage society that is the world of a government agency. But this does not cut it because patronage is wholly divorced from market signals that would actually (a) reveal where problems lie, and (b) bring urgency to get those problems fixed.

In a free market, if your product sales start dwindling, you are getting signals from the market that something is inadequate and needs to be changed, and if you don’t respond to those signals, you will go our of business and lose your livelihood. This feedback mechanism and its urgency is what makes (regulated) markets so efficient and why China began selling off State-owned enterprises 25 years ago and allowing a more free economic market in the country. You can’t feed 1.3 billion people with the government running agriculture (though even as I write this, there are Liberals across America who would argue this point, idiots that they are).

But government bureaucracies never go out of business. They don’t get signals from the markets. They have no accountability, other than to the petty dictators who run them, and those people are not interested in anything other than self-preservation and ass-covering.

So in the VA scandal, we have staff at dozens of hospitals who “kept a secret list of patients waiting for appointments to hide delays in care“.

This is Socialism in action: lies, obfuscation, legerdemain, and fraud, all designed to cover up the underlying TOTAL FAILURE of the system itself.

That is: the failure of the VA to PROVIDE TIMELY HEALTH CARE SERVICES for veterans, many of whom DIED while waiting.

Now, what if the Chief Executive, in this case the president of the United States, were to hold people accountable?

Let’s see how things are going on this front in the VA scandal, where veterans DIED in the waiting room:

Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, also called on Obama to back off plans to nominate Jeffrey Murawsky to replace the VA’s undersecretary for health care, Robert Petzel, who has stepped down. Murawsky, a career VA administrator, directly supervised Helman from 2010 to 2012.

The White House has said Obama is standing behind Murawsky’s nomination.

There you have it: A Marxist central planner who refuses to hold Murawsky accountable despite his DIRECT involvement in the mismanagement of the VA health system.

But we know very well that Barack Hussein Obama holds no one accountable, in ANY government agency, no matter how badly such bureaucrats and agencies fail.

  • Not in the IRS, after many in the hierarchy maliciously targeted Republican groups;
  • Not in the Justice Department, after the gun-walking program ended up arming Mexican narco-terrorists with high-calbre weapons, once of which was used to kill a U.S. border agent;
  • Not in the State Department, after four Americans were murdered by Muslim terrorists in Benghazi;
  • Not in the HHS Department, after the disastrous rollout of Obamacare

There can be only one explanation why a Chief Executive would allow all of these bureaucrats to keep their jobs despite such epic failures: because he is either the man behind the curtain on many of these tragedies, directing the action or inaction, or  he wants these failures, and in fact does not consider them failures.

He is the worst president in American history in at least one sense: the demise and destruction of our country, which is happening during his two terms in office, is being done by him.

He told us all that “we didn’t build that”, but when our country is laying in ruins, we will rightly say: he did it.


Read Full Post »

I got up close and personal with the Liberal mind last weekend — lunch with a talented and bright family member (let’s call him “Dan”) who is an Obama supporter and a proponent and defender of Obamacare (“talented / bright” in the same sentence as “defender of Obamacare”? I know, it doesn’t seem to add up, but that’s why the country is in the mess it’s in).

The conversation turned to Obamacare, which I had hoped to avoid, but there it was, and away we went. Things stayed cordial, which was a relief, although I suffered a great deal because I had to hold back a great flood of rhetorical intensity so as to protect relationships all around.

In the end I was left with even more respect for how Barack Hussein Obama hijacked a Great Nation. This is because he saw so clearly that Democrats / Liberals who sought payback for the Bush years were astoundingly ripe to be recruited (read: used) into supporting just about any alternative to the existing health care system, even a terrible one, or a diabolical one based on lies and smoke and mirrors. And not only did he see this advantage, he hung onto it, through the Wall Street disaster, which he ignored, and through the Scott Brown Senate victory (the Ted Kennedy seat went Republican for fear of Obamacare).


I now see that such a gamble was no gamble at all, and well worth it to him: central government control over peoples’ bodies and health was the ultimate Great Leap Forward for a young Marxist wanting to stifle freedom in the most free nation ever to grace the face of the earth.

And so I heard the following arguments from Dan:

  • Many other countries have “better health outcomes” than we do here in the USA, and that therefore our pre-Obama health care system had to be fixed with the ACA;
  • The unconstitutional, unilateral delays in ACA implementation are merely “the way politicians always phase things in, particularly legislation with uncomfortable changes”;
  • The notion that Barack Obama is a Marxist, or a man whose policies are influenced by his many Marxist mentors, professors, and family members, is a laughably nutty notion and not worthy of serious consideration;
  • Some people’s health insurance costs are going down because of the ACA;
  • Because I drive on roads and highways, that were paved by the government for my and everyone’s benefit, I must therefore submit to the idea that everything government does is right and good and effective for all the citizens;
  • The Affordable Care Act, while imperfect, is a good solution that can work

Each one of these is easily dismissed (see below), but the overriding point is that no matter how bad the employer-based health insurance model was, the ACA is and will be increasingly far worse. 

The cure is worse than the disease, plain and simple, and this makes Obamacare a moral crime.

This is already readily apparent not only from news reports, but from individual experiences all around us and including ourselves (my wife and I lost our insurance and then were told we could “keep it” for double the price). All arguments against the previous system are literally irrelevant, because to say that the antecedent was terrible is to say and prove nothing about the Frankenstein’s monster that is its replacement.

But one by one we go:

>”Better health outcomes” in other countries?

Is the ACA modeled on health care in any of those other countries?

No, not even one little bit.


>Delays in the ACA implementation are “business as usual among politicians in Washington”? No they are not. Barack Obama has audaciously blazed a new frontier: the selective enforcement of laws, a power that he does not have unless given expressly by statute. He is violating his oath of office. As Charles Krauthammer recently observed, imagine how Democrats will feel if a future Republican president decided that the IRS should not collect capital gains taxes any more because, in his or her opinion, such taxes were “anti-growth and killing jobs”…

This is called lawlessness, a state in which a country can disintegrate rather quickly. The Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances to censure and curb the recklessness of petty dictators such as the one we have occupying the White House in these sad times, and so Congress must hold the executive accountable for such vicious abrogation of the Constitution. But a Harry Reid Senate will not convict, and a population of voters that is increasingly on the dole is also unlikely to stand up and demand accountability (against their source of the Free Lunch? As if).

>mr. Obama’s Marxist influences and the Marxist ideology inherent in his policy prescriptions are not relevant to discuss? Yes they are relevant, as are the influences and beliefs of every presidential candidate past present and future.

Does Dan think that mr. Obama’s professors and family friends were not Marxists? He is wrong — they were openly Marxist in their political ideology (check out Frank Marshall Davis, to name just one strong influence on the young man), and mr. Obama himself casually admitted in The Audacity of Hope to his association with the “Marxists” in college (a set of connections so strong and undeniable he had no choice but to cop to it as he planned his bid for the presidency).

Does Dan think that Marxism is a Tea Party fantasy and not a real thing in the world? That would be a gravely mistaken fantasy indeed, as the 45 million souls who were starved to death by Mao’s Great Leap Forward (collectivization of agriculture) could attest from the other side of the veil. From the New York Times:

The worst catastrophe in China’s history, and one of the worst anywhere, was the Great Famine of 1958 to 1962, and to this day the ruling Communist Party has not fully acknowledged the degree to which it was a direct result of the forcible herding of villagers into communes under the “Great Leap Forward” that Mao Zedong launched in 1958. <source>

Sounds pretty real to me.

Marx and Mao

One of these men starved 45 million people to death in pursuit of the other man’s political philosophy. Do you know which is which? Does it matter?

Marxism is a real political philosophy and one that has tortured and murdered hundreds of millions of people.

The look on Dan’s face when I mentioned Marxism in the context of mr. Obama was priceless: he shook his head and even put a hand on my shoulder (!!), as if to say my medications would be coming soon, so crazy am I.

But Dan’s reaction is very familiar to me in this late-stage of the American experiment because who among us has experienced the likes of Nazi Germany, or Stalin’s purges, or Mao’s mass-starvation of tens of millions? None of us has. Our entire lives have been essentially sheltered in the bosom of American global hegemony, and  inside the average American mind the history of human atrocity somehow seems to reside not just in the past but permanently in the past — it can’t happen again, and it cant happen here, so there’s no need to be on guard.

If history is any guide (and it should be), this mind-state is ludicrous, and the one that is truly deserving of a friendly hand on the shoulder: it has happened before and can happen again, so perhaps we ought to try to keep eyes and ears open for the slow encroachment of central power.

>Some people are getting cheaper health care?

Maybe from the Easter bunny?

Easter Bunny cheap health care

>Government paved the roads and didn’t screw it up, and so therefore I must submit to the idea that government can manage health care? When you read that sentence you almost don’t need to make arguments to dismiss it, so laughable it is.

The funny thing is, I am seeing this argument more and more in Liberal circles: THE ROADS.

He uses the roads.

He uses the roads.

Garrison Keillor, the host of A Prairie Home Companion, lately has been saying that he is a “tax and spend Liberal and proud of it”, and one of his favorite explanations is that he “uses the roads“.

This line of reasoning — that coordinating the provision of health care for 310 million people is no more complex than paving roads — is so wrong in so many ways that I am going to dedicate an entire essay to it, and by the end of those words, it will lay in ruin forever.

>The ACA is a good solution to the ills of the previous system? My first response to this was to ask “How do you know?”. The imperial president has gutted the implementation of his own law in order to prevent its full damage from being done until after the next series of elections, and so its full effect is impossible to assess. Before you say that therefore I cannot condemn the law on the same grounds, I say: sure I can, because the ill effects are real and being felt RIGHT NOW, and because if the law were going to be helpful mr. Obama would not be scrambling to delay its implementation at every turn.

My second response was to list all the smoke and mirrors that define the ACA: so-called “sign-ups” are unverified and many have never been consummated through actual payment; the back end of the website is non-existent, meaning that insurance companies have no idea who is covered and who has claims to what; more people have lost insurance than have signed up under Obamacare, creating a net loss for Americans, and this will accelerate dramatically as the law grinds down on us in the next few years.

The Worst of All: Liberals Invite and Coddle the Totalitarianism that they Claim To Despise and that Grows Under Their Very Noses

Finally, the most disappointing thing of all when it comes to American Liberals is that they fail to join me on situations where we should be natural allies. I am for freedom and against central government oppression of citizens; for free choices and against Control. Liberals claim to hold these same views and often decry the plutocracy and the immoral and corrupt power of Wall Street firms and the military industrial complex.

And yet, they will stare you right in the eye and defend the Affordable Care Act, which has given (a) insurance companies a license to steal from and wage war against the middle class, fully backed the awesome and fearsome power of the IRS, and (b) waves of government bureaucrats direct control over our health care decisions, starting with the requirement that people buy insurance even though they don’t want it, and including Obamacare star chambers like the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a government body so fascistic that Barney Frank is now against its creation (since he left Congress) (“Barney Frank backs IPAB Repeal“).

How can this be?

They seem to forget that central government control and its inherent abuses led to the American Revolution, and that a cabal of government bureaucrats is one of the scariest things on earth, particularly when led by a megalomaniac leader. They get all agitated when a Republican inhabits the White House, but turn deaf and dumb and blind when a Democrat steps in.

Again the Chinese experience with centrally planned agricultural production:

As the catastrophe unfolded, people were forced to resort to previously unthinkable acts to survive. As the moral fabric of society unraveled, they abused one another, stole from one another and poisoned one another. Sometimes they resorted to cannibalism. <source>

And the megalomaniac leader’s reaction to the scale of human suffering he himself caused was….

At a secret meeting in Shanghai on March 25, 1959, he ordered the party to procure up to one-third of all the available grain — much more than ever before. The minutes of the meeting reveal a chairman insensitive to human loss:

When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill. 

Note the logic of the Marxist’s zero-sum-game: forget any notion that “everyone can eat”, and instead sign onto the notion that half must starve so the other half can barely subsist….a Marxist redistribution lesson of tragic proportion.

So how can American Liberals argue in favor of powerful corporate interests and government control of our lives?

How can they support the growing Leviathan in Washington DC, which is now getting involved in our choices of doctors, health insurance plans, hospitals, and more?

Why are such people so willing to so easily and naively throw away the freedom our forefathers won for us through bloody conflicts?

And when the next Reich is firmly in control of our lives, invited into power by such well-intentioned people, the result and the path chosen will be a Great Shame that will echo through eternity: people who lived free chose the yoke, again, but this time from the loftiest heights humanity ever reached.


Read Full Post »

Orwellian Obama has been riding Obamacare enrollee numbers like a true Soviet propaganda stallion, with Liberal commentators and pundits cheering him on (how embarrassing for them).

As he gallops around he proclaims that “we won” when it comes to forcing Obamacare down the throats of the American citizens who don’t want it, one wonders who “we” is.

Anyway, let’s have a dose of reality this morning:

Over half of the 221,604 Georgia Obamacare “enrollees” the Obama administration claims as enrollments have not paid for their plans, thereby leaving them still uninsured.

Georgia Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens says only 107,581 Georgians have paid for coverage. <source>

What we have in Georgia, and the rest of the nation, is an insurance death spiral in the making. This occurs when the composition of the insured population is such that too many sick people need care for existing PAID premiums to support the health insurance reimbursements, leading insurance companies to raise premiums to offset the losses, leading more people to drop out of the pool (too expensive), leading to worse losses for insurance companies, leading to even HIGHER premiums, and so on and so on until bankruptcy and total loss of health insurance for the entire population.

Nothing — NOTHING — about this probability has diminished in the last six months.

All of the alleged signups on exchanges are a complete sham in one way or another:

  1. Many haven’t paid the premiums, meaning they aren’t real signups;
  2. All enrollees have volunteered personal data in a site with no security on the backend: the state their health and body parts are naked to the world;
  3. The back end on the exchanges doesn’t exist…Insurance companies have no electronic way of getting paid.
  4. More Americans have lost insurance because of Obamacare than have gained insurance because of Obamacare

This last point is right out of George Orwell’s 1984 (or Chavez’s Venezuela): the central power touts its “success helping the people” while an offsetting amount of people are crushed along the way, and the subjects of the regime are fed lie after lie in order to hide the destruction readily apparent all around them.

Hudgens also said that insurance department estimates that 400,000 Georgians may lose their current health insurance coverage because of Obamacare.

So 400,000 Georgians lost their health insurance in order to facilitate 221,604 Georgians in getting health insurance? Does this sound like a winning election strategy for Barack Obama back in 2009 – 2012? Of course not — no politician would get a single vote running on such a promise.

Which is why he lied, and lied, and lied, and is still lying.

As for the exchange and its famous no-back-end, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, Barack Hussein Obama, the Great Soviet Oz:

Even as the Obama administration struggles to deal with the approaching end of open enrollment for health care exchanges, one critical part of the website has yet to be fixed. The back end of the website is the two-way connection between the government and insurance companies aimed at telling each other who signed up for what.

Said Robert Laszewski of Health Policy and Strategy Associates (source):

Insurance executives just see this as a major nightmare. I mean, when are we finally going to be able to reconcile all the data, to know who is really covered, who is really paid, and what the insurance companies should be paid for?

And you thought Obamacare was “working”?

It is a complete and total charade run by hard-core Marxists telling lies every single minute of every single day.

Will Americans keep believing the lies until it’s too late to fix this?


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »