Trust Dictionaries

I am going to leave this one up to Webster’s who seems to understand the nuances of Socialism and Communism vs. Capitalism.

The gripe I have is with Leftists who state a simple definition of Socialism as government owning production or the means of production. Some in media also use this definition. This has long been used as a blanket denial of socialism. One can say that definition is the hurdle and they are not advocating that. Thus, they blame you for misstating their position. It becomes a semantics argument. I reject that — and the approach.

That is why I believe Dem0ocrats are some of the most disingenuous or dishonest people there are. And why it is often pointless talking with them. They’ll throw these simple or deceptive meanings out there and expect you to comply with it. What is the point?

It is better to say government controls the means of production. Even that is a little flawed in today’s definitions of Socialism. They’ve been working at creating vagueness for years.

So here is the definition of Socialism and I encourage people to see this page for more information. Webster’s claims communism is one of their most looked up words.

Socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, “pure” socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

Then we come to the basic Hitler description of Socialism. Asked prior to WWII about abolishing private property, he wanted people to keep their private property just as long as they understand that they are agents of the state. In this way, government does not need to own production or private property, merely control it. While you may own it, you and the property are virtually controlled by the state. All they need is control.

That same philosophical distinction can apply to production. All the state needs is control, which can be achieved by regulations or other arms of the state. So that is the dirty thing Leftisits don’t want to talk about or you to know, as long as you accept their definitions.

Climate Of Religion

What we have seen is the overt politicization, weaponization and religiosity of the climate, or climate change, and the propagandizing of it. It should be no surprise that they politicized it to the max. That’s why so many people are outraged. But that was only the first step. Then they weaponize the climate, against the people of course.

Then they use the climate as the apocalyptic fear-mongering vehicle

When even the former head of Green Peace has to go on Hannity and call out the apocalypse hysteria of the Left, we are in a strange place.

He actually said that if we do the fossil full elimination they are calling for, it would decimate civilization. Or maybe that is what they want? He also said that our coal fired consumption is about 90% cleaner than it was decades ago.

But he said that today we still rely on fossil fuels for 80% of our electricity. Apparently they didn’t realize that when they tell us they want to switch to electric cars. Imagine the reaction when they all plug them in.

But they are telling us something with these Big Green Plans. They show us it is a religious movement now, full stop. The former Green Peace guy said what they are doing in incorporating kids into their message is equal to child abuse. Well, it should be criminal. The same person also said that the direction they are taking it, including using children (and emotions), is just to push their radical socialism or social justice platform.

I guess they don’t realize that we see exactly what they are doing. They turned it into a political issue, weaponized it, then made it a religious one. And they now feel comfortable turning that weapon on anyone they need to propel their political agenda.

Wouldn’t you think using and scaring kids would be a bit over the top? Not for them. In fact, it is right up their alley. The same way they have been using kids in their socialized healthcare schemes. Just roll out the children. What’s next, having children lobby and protest for late term abortion rights? Don’t be surprised.

As I said some time ago: is there anything too radical and extreme even for Democrats? Not anymore. Remember Claire McKaskill let the dirty secret out of the bag in the campaign, before she lost? She said those are the crazy Democrats and she was not one of them. But now that the election is over and AOC has taken over the party, with an assist from Bernie Sanders, it looks like they are telling us loud and clear that really all Dems are crazy Democrats. That’s the way it works.

We used to hear them say on the campaign that they would not be a lockstep vote, and they were independent minded, and that they would represent the people. Remember Trump called them out at rallies and said if they get in, they will only be Pelosi puppets and vote in lockstep. Rubber stamps. Again, Trump was completely right. But it only took a few short weeks for that to happen and prove it.

Bottom line is these people are not at all about preventing a catastrophe, they are all about creating one. And the faster they get there, the better. Have kids believe that the world is going to incinerate. We used to hide under desks in schools, remember. Now just tell them it is over. So we might as well blow through a hundred trillion dollars trying because it’s a lost cause unless. Unless they can save planet earth from destruction. Well, I wonder what kept planet earth from destruction years ago before they came along? They sort of sound like a revised version of Heaven’s Gate people over the Hale-Bopp Comet.

It does show us something. That the climate change and socialists, besides getting in bed with each other, are reading from the same script. It is all about belief. It is only based on that. Throw in a few anecdotes and current events to make your case, then round up the kids and give them their lines. Send them out to the public and watch people get sucked in. Or so goes the plan. However, what it really is based on is belief.(echoes of Obama) Have enough people to believe it and you can even summon a Hale-Bopp comet to come and rescue them. And they are betting all their marbles, and our money, on it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Bern is the word

The fight is on. Not the Democrat vs. Republican one, but the one inside Democrat Party between Sanders and Hillary. And with Bill Clinton in the mix now, they are waging war on Bernie Sanders.

Reading between the lines, it must be that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is getting real nervous that Sanders has upset the apple cart of Hillary’s establishment campaign. In the sixties, it was “bird is the word” but today “Bern is the word.” B-B-B-BERN!

Berserk Clinton Bigwigs Launch Nixonian Attack Against Surging Sanders

“Eleven populist points about the Bernie blizzard”
By Brent Budowsky • 01/20/16

In an astonishing political development, as a CNN/WMUR poll shows Bernie Sanders defeating Hillary Clinton by an astounding 27 points in the New Hampshire primary and an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds him defeating Donald Trump in the general election by a whopping 15 points, a long list of prominent Clinton supporters has launched an all-out negative attack against Mr. Sanders reminiscent of the red-baiting attacks Richard Nixon once deployed against liberals.

Read:
Berserk Clinton Bigwigs Launch Nixonian Attack Against Surging Sanders

Substitute Bern for the Bird (the Trashmen – Surfin’ Bird)

    A-well-a, everybody’s heard about the Bern
    Bern, Bern, Bern, B-Bern’s the word
    A-well-a, bern, bern, bern, b-bern’s the word

Hillary didn’t expect the burn treatment would be coming from inside the Party. In the last debate, DWS was visibly all over Hillary like a campaign adviser. I wonder if she reserved a spot over on Bernie’s campaign? I guess now we’ll see if DWS and Dems take issue with the socialist word?

New American System

A troubling thought:

“Within the army of Republican presidential candidates, the vast majority are either ignorant of or refuse to accept the reality of who the opponents are and the depth to which the nation has sunk.”

Obamism and Neo-fascist America

By Steve McCann – August 10, 2015 | American Thinker

The philosophical foundation of the American Left and the Democratic Party is a proprietary hybrid of Fascism. While in lockstep with the economic and political tenets of Fascism, the unique feature of the current American iteration is anti-nationalism as reflected in the belief that the United States is the locus of malevolence in the world as compared to militant nationalism of Italy and Germany in the 1920’s and 30’s.

Sheldon Richman in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics describes Fascism as follows:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalistic veneer.
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices; fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.
Under fascism, the state, through official agencies, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans”.

The concept of a corporate state has been a staple of the American Left since Franklin Roosevelt. It was FDR that initiated the National Labor Relations Board to make the Government the final arbiter in labor issues. The National Recovery Act governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce and the Agricultural Adjustment Act which introduced central planning to agriculture. It is generally acknowledged today that this approach by Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression by another five years. (Jonah Goldberg’s masterpiece Liberal Fascism convincingly demonstrates the fascist roots of today’s liberalism.)

Beginning in the 1960’s the American Left, while nominally in favor of Marxism, had as their foundational tenets narcissism and rampant anti-Americanism. However, as the societal and economic seeds of Fascism were already planted and generally accepted by a sizable segment of the populace, it was a short logical leap, therefore, to become proponents of the economic and political precepts of Marxism’s closest cousin. […/]

Continue reading>

Once again, remember the top quote, from the closing of the article:

Within the army of Republican presidential candidates, the vast majority are either ignorant of or refuse to accept the reality of who the opponents are and the depth to which the nation has sunk.

This was published before Democrats first debate, which was more less a coming out party for the new American system. The emphasis was about socialism, but in the background is all this ideological baggage that goes with and into such a system.

As the article suggests, Obama has gone a long way in instituting — beyond setting the foundations for — this toxic system. And a key component of all his efforts was to make each element hard to rip out at its roots. We see how hard it’s been trying to weed out ObamaCare, which is only one of the things he planted. The EPA regs, the Iran deal, illegals and his executive amnesty are just a few more. Throw sanctuary cities on top.

Of course we talk about getting rid of them but have yet to do it. Plus Obama is not through yet. Even one or two are troubling, but combined together they all have an even greater effect. (one on one they make up the fabric of the greater whole) Add to it his social justice component which is just another economic tool. We were in trouble as a country before but now with what he has done, what are the odds that we can undo it all?

Democrats 101

Class, let’s review, what have we learned about Democrats:

Democrats really are socialists. (at the least)

Democrats are incapable of vetting a nominee. (3 strikes = out.)

Democrats want to elect a president based only on his/her identity.

Gender is a new qualifier for President, right after skin color.

Democrats will support an indictable person even they can’t trust.

A Democrat debate is not a democratic debate.

Trump calls Dem agenda on debate

For months now we’ve been asking Debbie Wasserman Schultz what the difference is between a Democrat and a Socialist? She danced around to avoid answering the question. Now we know why, or let’s say the first debate proved what we already knew. There is none. Socialism is the central component in the left.

But they made sure to demonstrate it loud and clear for any in doubt. The question was never what is socialism but what are Democrats? Socialism for a thousand, Alex.

Dems handled the first Marxist debate how you’d expect. The only thing not open to debate was the state of the Socialists Party. Bernie would not attack Hillary’s email discretions or sever scandal, and Hillary would not condemn Sanders’ socialism.(was there a debate prenuptial?) Thou shalt not attack socialism, and historically an indictable felony is no problem to Democrats. Seeing is believing.

Trump calls Bernie Sanders the ‘C-word’

October 15, 2015 | Michael Dorstewitz | BizPac Review

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump used the “C-word “ to describe Democratic presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, at a rally Wednesday. That’s right, he called him a Communist.

“I watched Hillary last night with, ‘We’re gonna give this, we’re gonna give that, we’re gonna give that’ “ he said, describing the Democratic presidential debate, at a campaign stop in Richmond, Virginia.

“The poor woman, she’s got to give everything away because this maniac that was standing on her right is giving everything away so she’s following. That’s what’s happening. This socialist slash Communist. OK. Nobody wants to say it.”

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/10/15/trump-calls-bernie-sanders-the-c-word-264121/

Oh, why don’t they just rename it the Progressive Party at least? That’s what they call themselves. PP is same initials as Planned Parenthood. It’s still too early to call it the Marxist or Communist Party that it is, so Progressive Party sounds better.

The Papal Smackdown on U.S.

The Pope will arrive in US next week with the usual fanfare that entails a Papal visit. In view of expectations and his prior statements, he will probably stir the pot rather heavily. Then the joint session speech.

With those known factors, as well as his positions, I may write about it because it’s something I follow. However, I want to forewarn anyone that opposition and disagreement is not Pope bashing. I’ve been through that so many times my head would spin counting. Again, criticism is not Pope-bashing just as criticizing Obama is not racism.

Francis started this with his controversial statements. But I don’t expect to see anyone boycott his joint-session speech, or bar Obama from meeting the Pope because we are in political campaign season. (ala Bibi) Just the opposite, Obama is all about that. And since when did someone come here meddling in our policies? That kind of influence will be welcomed by the Democrats, though they are tied to the abortion industry as “law of the land”. But because they appreciate his socialist bent on economic and cultural matters, they encourage him all the more to make that case to the American people. (i.e. Ted Kennedy & Yuri Andropov)

So as a reminder, I am not a Catholic though I have no interest in bashing the Pope. I’ve also expressed my disagreement and disappointment with evangelicals and protestants in many areas. This was brought about by Pope Francis. As far as separating politics from religion, this Pope has erased many political boundaries. I’m not a separationist either and will not play those games, much less use that as fodder against the Pope of Rome.

On the outside chance he does not delve into controversial, political areas — and what haven’t the Dems politicized — it is still a matter that his people and Vatican have taken stands on these things, whether directly by Francis or his many evolving set of advisers. He may decide, as many politicians do, to let staffers and advisers make his case. But the case is his nonetheless, and he laid claim to it.

There is a lot of this going on

The title on this article could be slightly misleading to people today. It may not be just what you expect.

If Only Christians In America Today Would Sing Louder!

Together, we can turn this destruction around; but if you choose to remain silent, don’t be surprised when they come for you and there is no one left to speak out.

Bradlee Dean May 15, 2015 | Western Journalism

When the hypocrites and accomplices to Adolph Hitler (Matthew 7:21-23) would sing praises to Jesus in the protestant churches in Germany, they would sing louder to drown out the noise of the Jews, Gypsies, and dissidents who were crying out for help while they were being hauled off in cattle cars to concentration camps–or even worse, extermination camps (Psalm 78:9).

When church services were over, they would find their cars toppled with the ash of the bodies that were burned in the incinerators.

To further the atrocities of these traitors to Christ, they were the ones handing off their youth groups to do Hitler’s killing for them.

These professors loved Jesus so much that they simply disobeyed His commandments with every opportunity they had (1 John 2:4).

I am sure most of you have heard:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

– Martin Niemöller

Martin Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for this quotation. I have heard this quote many times before, but it was just recently that I learned that the man who said it was a prominent protestant pastor during the time of Hitler and the Nazis. It was learning this fact that made all the difference in the world in understanding where this quote stemmed from. […/]

More: http://www.westernjournalism.com/if-only-christians-in-america-today-would-just-sing-louder/

We certainly have our problems today, and Christians nor churches are immune to the culture contributing to the apathy. Many do recommend singing a little louder. Not to make it a left and right problem, but there can be no denying the liberalization and its political influence gnawing at the foundation.

Just a little louder, please. And ignore those 55 million babies piling up, too. Climate change is a symptom of man but killing millions of babies is commendable and dignified. Preserving the habitat for the Delta Smelt is something worthy, while sacrificing babies on the altar of protecting abortion is worth fighting to preserve. Got values?

The audacity of money

We could be reaching a whole new saturation level in politics today, especially concerning America’s favorite beyotch, HRC.

Well, if the speaking fees (and amenities to match) were not enough to draw even the ire of MSM, then it has gotten worse since. But it is still all about money, surprise. That’s what Clintons are about, after all, and lots of it.

Last year at this time, MSNBC even got into the outrage that HRC was getting 275,000 for an hour-long speech at SUNY Buffalo. Then MSM dared to ask the question of all questions: why did Hillary take the money? Why couldn’t she wave the fee or just do it for free? That would never cross Hillanista’s mind. And she also could not forgo the rich amenities she demands with it either. Like a crook leaving some cash behind, she could not do that. The money is the whole point. How much are her words worth?

Now we have the uncovering of the Clinton cash component entangled with her corrupt State Department term. Then we have Hillary’s pronouncement of her 2.5 billion dollar campaign plan for 2016. Maybe that kind of cash was meant to scare Republicans. Alright, can you imagine Rand Paul raising and waging 2.5 billion dollars? I don’t think that’s going to happen. What about any other contender? Not likely but a 5 billion-dollar election for president? What does that say about America? Jeb, are you up for that?The whole point is what does it say about the Clintons? By the next election, how about a quarter of a trillion? Trying to ante up in this high-stakes game makes it extremely difficult.

So are Clintons out to buy our process? We already know they are globalists with their eyes set on the world. Is this their means? They can claim, while doing it, that they are doing a lot of good. The moral to the story, from progressives’ perspective, is what does it matter how many millions they are raking in if they are doing some good? (how much does mosquito netting cost these days?) The Clinton Global Initiative is really the Clinton Initiative — by Clintons for Clintons.

Contrast that with Hillary’s campaign. It seems oddly ironic to run a campaign theme of fight for the little guy, her anti-one-percenter theme. The Clintons entire objective is to raise money — and there are no glass ceilings. But they think they can get away with it because, after all, they are the Clintons. Who can deny the Clintons what they want?

So will America empty its pockets into the coffers of Clintons to get another Clinton elected? Isn’t it time America puts the Clinton Clowns out to political pasture? If not now when? We cannot separate them from their cashola but we can say enough public offices on our dime. They prove how effective they can be without political power — shadow government and all — so why give that to them, too? (be glad to get rid of them)

Their collective political bios should already be written and finished. What more do Clintons need or want to get from our government? Because we know it is about what America will do for them, not what they would ever do for America.

Plus, we will have another guy leaving the White House to suck oxygen out of the universe. That is bad enough on the face, so why put another Occupier into the Oval Office again on top of it? Hillary shows how lucrative the speaker circuit is for her. Same for Bill. And Obama is bound to enrich his wealth on the same and he’ll have his ___ organization. This stuff just keeps going on and on and on, and it seems nothing is going to stop it.

Ouch, this is gonna hurt

Obamacare enrollment appears to have hit the wall

By Thomas Lifson — April 7, 2015 | American Thinker

John Merline of Investor’s Business Daily has been examining the numbers on Obamacare enrollment and discovers that, contrary to predictions of millions more signing up, new enrollments are dying up.

Earlier this year, the Obama administration hoped to boost ObamaCare sign-ups by offering a special enrollment period for millions who didn’t know about the individual mandate penalty until they filed their taxes.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/obamacare_enrollment_appears_to_have_hit_the_wall.html

Evidently the same geniuses designed Obamacare as the global warming agenda. Obama sycophants say “you just want to see it fail.” Well, the problem is what failure means: the more it fails, the more expensive it will get. No one is hoping for that.

But it was entirely predictable when Dems did a bill called the affordable care act. I guess this explains Obama shifting his emphasis to his unconstitutional executive amnesty. One scandal or diversion after another.

More fallout on Gruber

Live from Australia, it’s Prez know-nothing at the G-20 Summit commenting on Grubergate.

Obama: We didn’t mislead on health care bill

David Jackson, USA TODAY | November 16, 2014

President Obama says he and his administration did not mislead the public on the financing of the health care law, disputing statements by a consultant who said supporters of the bill took advantage of the “stupidity” of American voters.

“The fact that an adviser who was never on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is not a reflection on the actual process that was run,” Obama told reporters at a news conference following the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia.

“I would just advise every press outlet here: Pull up every clip and every story,” Obama said. “I think it’s fair to say there was not a provision in the health care law that was not extensively debated and was fully transparent — it was a tough debate.

From Politico:

“While Gruber was not a staffer, he was a paid consultant whose models were used to help assess the impact of various policy changes being considered as part of health care legislation. Official logs show he visited the White House about a dozen times between 2009 and this year.

More: www.usatoday.com/2014/11/16/obama-health-care-law-jonathan-gruber-g-20-news-conference/

It’s official, not only did they kick the prestigious professor Gruber to the curb, they completely disconnect him to the Obamacare bill.  Fully transparent, extensively debated – and fair to say that?  Back to the lying mode.

Once again, the Oval Office Occupant says he is just learning about this. I imagine Gruber will be stunned to find he had nothing to do with it. All those personal meetings apparently counted for nothing. Gruber is deemed less important than the WH fence jumper.

Politico reported:

When the president was asked whether he had intentionally misled the public in order to get the law passed, he replied: “No. I did not.”

Obama said the notion that any provisions in the bill were hidden is absurd given the intensity of news coverage of the subject when the bill was being drafted and debated in Congress.

A rejection of radicalism

As someone else says “….this ain’t bean bag”. But then this is not politics, as commonly understood.

Well, politics is bad enough, I know, but this is far from your mom and pop’s politics. The Alinsky radicals don’t play “politics” that way either. This is part of the problem, and it is only my opinion for what its worth….your mileage may vary.

The point is if it isn’t conventional politics, it is radicalism. Something happened though which seems sort of odd to some people. We the people, the sane ones, saw Barack Obama coming. We knew in no time what he stood for — or what he didn’t. We knew he was a different animal, and the events just validated it.

Sure media played their games. But the people found out, researched and were vindicated by the events. We saw the fraud and misrepresentation. However, Washington doesn’t think and act the same way we do. If they learned of any of this they forgot it, or never grasped it. They assumed, as many still do, that it is just politics and it is not.

Sure progressives now are a lot of things, like extremists, but they are radicals. We need to let that soak in to the beltway mentality. You would think they would have caught on over this 6+ years. But there are some slow learners in there.

So now we have a big problem. One does not just play the same way with radicals. One cannot project the same political strategies and goals on them. The rejection of this radicalism is an ongoing effort, and something elections won’t solve by popular vote.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama is the caricature he attacks

Obama is the caricature he always ran against.

Obama has created a fictitious caricature of his opposition since the beginning. And loaded it with plenty of straw man arguments, too. Most as specious as the design.

We all know what Ohama has railed against but in actuality he is everything he criticizes.Think of the big spending elite ruling class.

  • Rails against racism whether overt or couched and seems to see it everywhere, except in himself.
  • against big business’s influence in politics
  • out of control spending
  • the elite ruling class making decisions above the purview of the people
  • Foreign policy run amok.
  • a corrupt administration abusing its power
  • constipated government, incapable of making good decisions
  • fat cat politicians disconnected from the people.

In reality, he is all that he attacks and more. He is the poster child for abusive government. He is the classic example of nontransparent government. He runs against government failure while being a product of failure. He claims to be the best ally Israel ever had.

If there was an award for lies, he would be king of the competition.

He nick-named himself as “no drama Obama” and is now anything but. Obama is synonymous with failure. He supposedly stands for healthcare for everyone that will save lives, while he is the biggest proponent for abortion and Planned Parenthood.

When Obama ran against Bobby Rush and lost, he was crushed. He was jilted and rejected. He wondered about running again. Now the inner conflict returns. I wish he were just another Congressman or Senator. Hope and change means: hope nothing changes.

In 2000, then Bobby Rush quipped about Obama:

Rush slammed Obama in an interview with The Chicago Reader published on March 17, 2000, saying, “He went to Harvard and became an educated fool,” adding, “We’re not impressed with these folks with these eastern elite degrees.”

So then, why on earth would the black community be so impressed with him now, using civil rights as nothing more than a whipping post?

RightRing | Bullright

Obamacare, the home edition

Some doctors wary of taking insurance exchange patients

Jayne O’Donnell, USA TODAY 10:34 a.m. EDT October 28, 2014 | USA Today

Now that many people finally have health insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchanges, some are running into a new problem: They can’t find a doctor who will take them as patients.

Because these exchange plans often have lower reimbursement rates, some doctors are limiting how many new patients they take with these policies, physician groups and other experts say.

“The exchanges have become very much like Medicaid,” says Andrew Kleinman, a plastic surgeon and president of the Medical Society of the State of New York. “Physicians who are in solo practices have to be careful to not take too many patients reimbursed at lower rates or they’re not going to be in business very long.”

More: USA Today

It’s all up to the physicians, is it? Sure, blame doctors. But if they were adding as many people as they claimed they were going to, how is this not predictable? Let’s see, more patients, same amount of doctors, reduced rates. But it was all upside, right?

Narrowing the networks. Like what doctors control the networks? Don’t we get it? Its all about limiting choice and availability to bring the cost down. The best part of this whole smokescreen is who to blame? The insurance company blames the doctors. Doctors can blame the networks for their payment rates and the fact that they can’t handle the patient load. Never mind those rate hikes, too. All this finger pointing and guess who is not on the front burner to blame?

They claimed to be adding 30 million more people, by command.I suppose next they could tell airlines they have to increase the number of passengers on planes. Voila!

The problems were predictable. Back in Hillarycare days, Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that “anyone who thinks [Hillarycare] can work in the real world as presently written isn’t living in it.” That seems where back to the future has brought us. Is it any wonder it is still plagued with problems? (even as many times as it has been rewritten) Ramble off.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary sets the tone for her run…. wind her up

The First Lady of Misspeak has done it again. Hillary Clinton put her whole leg in her mouth pandering to a crowd of Dem supporters in the liberal state of Massachusetts.

Except it was not a slip or an error. It was very much planned and intentional. She was only following Obama’s lead, who followed Elizabeth Warren’s remarks. Ah, there is never really much new with Democrats. And there is usually a bread trail.

You see, when – not if – she declares she is running, she will have to head off the attack from the left flank of the Demmitude Party. The likes of Warren in particular. But Warren has been honing that Marxist message for years now. Hillary has some katching up to do. (sorry, I have a propensity for misspelling words) New, anything new about Hillary?

Obama had a penchant for lifting popular words and messages from people, too. It runs in the Dem family. And just like Obama, don’t tell her words don’t matter. Wait, please tell her they don’t.

Washington — [Updated 2:40 p.m.] Hillary Rodham Clinton’s recent comment about trickle-down economics has launched a war of spin – and an effort Monday by Mrs. Clinton to correct herself.

First, here’s what the likely 2016 presidential candidate said at a campaign event last Friday for Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate:

“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” former Secretary of State Clinton said in Boston. “You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly. One of the things my husband says when people say, ‘What did you bring to Washington?’ He says, ‘I brought arithmetic.’ ”

On Monday she revised and extended her remarks to say:

“Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up.… Not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

Except that is not what she said — no matter how long she says she’s been saying it. She clearly said in Elizabethian speak: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” And that was only shorthand for ‘businesses do not create jobs.’ The second part of her statement was about trickle down economics.

But in Clinton’s and Warren’s, and Obama’s formula, it is all very much trickle down economics from Big-Government. Why doesn’t everyone just say that?

If we learned one thing from Hillary, it was that everything is trickle down with her, including blame for the terrorist attack on Benghazi. If she is so adamant about her non-trickle down approach, why doesn’t she defend it instead of back peddling. Does she not really believe in Marxism as she suggests?

She did not have quite the delivery of Queen Elizabeth Warren:

Here we go again… haven’t we seen this movie before?

Take it, Hillary….

Reference: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/1027/Hillary-Clinton-says-businesses-don-t-create-jobs.-Uh-oh.-video

RightRing | Bullright

Ed Schultz praising socialism

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Praises Germany: ‘Here’s Some Good Socialism!’

By Scott Whitlock | October 2, 2014 |

Liberal MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz could barely contain himself on Thursday as he gushed over Germany’s “socialism.” The country officially scrapped tuition fees and this sent Schultz into a fit of envy: “We need to take a page out of the country Germany. Here’s some good socialism for you!” [MP3 audio here.]

After discussing bailouts of Wall Street, Schultz enthused, “This week, Germany abolished all tuition fees, not some. All! A college education is now free in this country. Free.” (Because if a government deems something “free,” that means nobody has to pay, right?) The host concluded, “In this country, Germany, education is a right. Not a privilege. So different here, isn’t it?”

Schultz then brought on socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. In 2011, the liberal journalist declared Sanders his “favorite.”

In 2010, while calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine, Schultz lobbied for “socialism” on the airwaves.

Schultz isn’t shy about his affinity for “socialism.” Considering his extremely low cable ratings, perhaps there’s a reason he wants to spread the wealth around.

A partial transcript of the October 2 segment is below:

ED SCHULTZ: Here’s an idea for you. How about a bailout for student loan debt across America? Now, in 2008, the government had no problem throwing over $700 billion of taxpayer money at Wall Street. How about the government throwing 700 billion dollars at the middle class in this country and let’s start with the 20 and 30-somethings and the folks that have college loan debt out there?

SCHULTZ: We need to take a page out of the country Germany. Here’s some good socialism for you! This week, Germany abolished all tuition fees, not some. All! A college education is now free in this country. Free. Education is not a right, is it? No, wait a minute. In this country, Germany, education is a right. Not a privilege. So different here, isn’t it?

Newsbusters

Maybe Schultz and Bernie Sanders could form a nice socialist government themselves somewhere. Right, that would require a whole lot of help.

Dem donor supports secession

Well, here are elitist Democrats weighing the benefits of secession.

Major Democratic Donor Supports Southern Secession

South ‘dumbing down’ America, donor declares

BY: CJ Ciaramella | Free Beacon
August 12, 2014

A major Democratic donor said he supports Southern secession because the South is “dumbing down” national politics, according to emails from a secret progressive Google group obtained by Media Trackers, a conservative Wisconsin news outlet.

In an email thread on Gamechanger Salon—a closed Google group of progressive organizers, reporters, and campaign apparatchiks—Guy Saperstein, a major Democratic donor and part owner of the Oakland Athletics baseball team, said he would support the South seceding.

“For more than 100 years, the South has been dumbing down national politics, tilting the country in a conservative direction, supporting militarism, all while demanding huge financial subsidies from blue states,” Guy Saperstein wrote in the emails. “It would be 100% fine with me if the South was a separate nation, pursuing its own priorities and destiny.”

In the email thread from last October, Gamechanger Salon participants were discussing a Michael Lind story at Salon entitled “The South is Holding America Hostage.”

“I thought this was an impressive (if tough) piece of big-picture political strategy and prescription,” member Jon Stahl wrote. “Would be interested to hear others’ opinions of whether he is on target or way off … and if so what that might imply.”

“In the alternative, could we just let the South secede?” Saperstein began, before offering his opinions on secession. “My comment was not made in jest at all.”

Saperstein is a former president of the Sierra Club Foundation and a former member of the Democracy Alliance, a shadowy group of wealthy liberals who direct donations to progressive causes and organizations. […/]

More: http://freebeacon.com/politics/major-democratic-donor-supports-southern-secession/

For years, progressives have railed against Southern “secession” talk, calling the people and idea all kinds of names from racist to treasonous. Now they appear to endorse the idea. Of course, I could label their motives many things, but politics always drives everything on the Marxist Left. It’s that simple,  politics trumps all including reality.

They played up racism by suggesting the plan would have to allow blacks enough time to relocate up north. And the Right is dumbing down politics? Classic.

The ultimate clueless corporatist and company

It’s a bird, it’s a plane. No, it’s an Obama.

Over at the Daily Caller I read an article about Obama the corporatist, which is a pretty good description. And another makes the case that he is “clueless”. Both show his politics are driven by special interests. Well, no news there is there?

The first article makes the case for Obama the corporatist.

Like many others, I’ve been on the lookout for examples of corporatism — the tendency to replace the formal individuated equality of the market, universal rights and democracy with rule by society’s various big interest groups, exercising special privileges by virtue of their particular social role and cutting deals with each other (usually to protect themselves).

I bet these evangelicals never saw themselves as entwined in that paradigm. But they are. Yet they can spot it in other groups, not themselves.

But it deserves closer examination. Sure Obama has run his politics and campaign on special interest fuel. That is also what gave us this divisive landscape. Does he care about the toxic landscape? Not on your life or anyone else’s. In fact, he doesn’t value life at all, but that is not the point here. There really is no logic or common sense behind it. Those people in special interests are only as good as that next handout, favor, or promise as the case me be — and dependent on it. Now that is the point.

Take young people, for example. Obama and the DNC claim they won them over in droves. Done mainly by talk and promises. One was a step closer to socialized medicine. They didn’t know much about socialized medicine, and many do not remember the Hillarycare ordeal. So he went after this new generation to buy them with all these nice sounding schemes. Instead of lowering the costs of tuition, he promises more money for it driving the costs up even further. What do they care, if he promises more money? Would he cut up the ‘halls of ivy’ institutional gold card? No, that would go against their special interest politics.

The “Clueless” article mentioned a quote from Obama himself.

“Sometimes, people don’t always act rationally, and they don’t always act based on their medium term, long-term interest,” he said about the Arabs and Jews, as if they are Illinois state legislators arguing about how to spend tax revenues.

It’s hard to imagine Obama criticizing anyone for not thinking of “long-term interests”. Pot meet kettle. And his circle of sycophants don’t seem to care about that either.

Now imagine the youth who were all crazy and “fired up” for Obama in a few short years. Right now they are fortunately in a demographic Obama and the DNC care about. So will they still fit in a few years, into one of DNC’s beloved special interests?

In a few years they’ll be out of school and applying for some job in the private sector, to make back those tens of thousands of debt dollars. They’ll be fighting the stale economy, wondering where are the jobs? They’ll be faced with rising taxes, and soaring costs of food and energy. But they will be on their own, literally. because they don’t fit into a group qualifying for special status or subsidies. They might even be in a non-preferred group.

So that personal interest Obama (DNC) took in them will be a distant memory. Just like those miners in Virginia and Pennsylvania, the courtship is over. Sure you may want to continue supporting them in any case, but why? Unless you still fit into one of their preferred status groups, you are as relevant a mosquito to them. So that is their future, but no one is looking that far ahead.

Notice what the union miners have suddenly realized about Obama, that he sold them out. It doesn’t feel so well to be used and abused. Hell, they don’t treat illegal aliens that bad.

UMWA protestors arrested

So what happens when you become one of the non-preferred groups and persona non grata, even after you supported Dems? Protest all you want… there’s nobody at home.

Are you taking notes students? Where will you be in a few short years? Then there is the real irony in the miners’ situation: the only ones who care and listen are the conservatives and Republicans. Is that not strange? But they still don’t get it as they support a handmaid of Tom Steyer, the guru of greenbacks on the Left.

Now just reverse the clock back ten years and you would remember all the outrage over Dick Cheney meeting with oil people. You would have thought the world was coming to an end. Contrast that with the endless number of meetings the Occupier has had himself with union leaders and thugs of all kinds, even weekly. In fact, they want more of it.

RightRing | Bullright

Willful Intent

Though it steps on one of my drafts, there is growing suspicion about Obama’s intent as to all these problems.

For months and longer, a debate has raged over Obama’s intentional destruction of America. Some see the damage as as collateral, some see it as the main objective. Whatever your opinion on it, that is finally coming around.

Bill O’Reilly of all people has begun talking about the willful intent in these problems and scandals. He also had Krauthammer on who artfully explained the scenario of Obama’s willful behavior, as only Charles can.

 

Krauthammer said that things are pretty bad, but noted, “There’s a big difference between decline as a condition and decline as a choice. What we have with Obama is a president choosing decline.”

At the least, the problems are the natural results of his ideology and policies. On the further end, the results are fully intentional. Well, in either case all is working according to plan. They are using the ideas they want, and they are having their negative affects.

From the Liberals’ perspective, the only problem is getting people to see both ideas and results as good. A segment of his base will see everything he does as good, and therefore accept any results as good — even if actually bad. This is where the Democrats’ spin comes in handy. Convince people to see a negative as a positive.

Now we are back to that scripture: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

Now we have lots of people finally coming out on the side of willful intent, seeing the results of Obama’s actions as intentional. But that makes sense because to try to blame it all as accidental is about impossible.

On 6/24, in his talking points, O’Reilly admitted that the early criticisms — aside from qualifications and religion — of right-wing conservatives was true. A big admission for Bill that only took 6 years. But the first clue might have been Obama using his campaign as his resume’. Maybe O’Reilly missed that obvious clue.

RightRing | Bullright

They’re out of touch and we’re out of time

Lawmakers are out of touch with the lower-income class. There’s a shocker. So to the masses of Obama drones who think they are seeing to your every whim, you must be dreaming. These guys can’t facilitate those tasks they are Constitutionally charged with doing. And you think they can micromanage your healthcare, let alone your life?

Barone: Designers of Obamacare Misjudged Behavior of Uninsured

Monday, 03 Feb 2014 11:19 AM

By Melanie Batley | Newsmax

The designers of Obamacare made wholly inaccurate assumptions about how uninsured and lower income people would respond to new healthcare options, and evidence from the troubled program’s start-up should provide a lesson on the pitfalls of governing a socially and economically diverse nation, says Michael Barone.

“The evidence is not all in. But it seems that Americans are not behaving as Obamacare’s architects — and many critics — expected,” the syndicated columnist writes in The Wall Street Journal.

Barone, the senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, highlights three misguided assumptions at the heart of the president’s signature healthcare law.

For a start, he says, the authors of the legislation incorrectly assumed that everyone wants health insurance, and that if low-cost coverage was available for those with modest incomes, the uninsured would overwhelmingly take advantage of it.

The evidence so far, Barone says, does not bear that out. He cites low enrollment rates among the uninsured and a recent Kaiser poll indicating the program’s unpopularity among that group.

“One reason may be that Obamacare requires policies to cover not just the expenses of catastrophic illness — the sort of thing auto and home insurance policies cover — but routine medical expenses and procedures that many individuals will not need,” Barone writes.

“Apparently many of the uninsured aren’t interested in prepaying for health insurance any more than they are interested in prepaying their credit cards.”

Barone says a second assumption was that health insurance would make people healthier. He points to evidence from a two-year Oregon health study that showed there was no significant difference between the health of those who received Medicaid compared to those who were eligible and didn’t have Medicaid coverage.

Barone adds that the Oregon study also debunks the assumption that those with health insurance are more likely to go to the doctor rather than the emergency room: in the study, those with Medicaid were 40 percent more likely to go to emergency rooms than those without insurance.

None of these three assumptions has been conclusively disproved, Barone says. But, he contends that the discrepancies between what policymakers expected and the behavior of Obamacare’s intended beneficiaries highlight evidence of sharp differences in behavior between the bottom 30 percent of white Americans and the upper 20 percent.

Lawmakers, he says, tend to come from the latter group, and the failures of Obamacare suggest that they are out of touch with the desires and behavior of those in the lowest income classes, the very group the policy was intended to help.

“The trouble that has resulted — from the architects’ apparent failures to anticipate the behavior of fellow citizens who don’t share their approach to the world, and the architects’ determination to impose their mores, such as contraception coverage, on a multicultural nation — is a lesson to national policymakers, conservative as well as liberal,” Barone writes.

“Govern lightly if you want to govern this culturally diverse nation well.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/barone-inaccurate-assumptions-obamacare/2014/02/03/id/550574

H/T to Dave for the article.

And speaking of “judgement”, the elite ruling class, elected show some keen judgement in all this absentee oversight of things like the IRS, Geengate, Benghazi, Fast and Furious gun running, our borders, or even their own spending bonanza in Stimugate. Except where they do get ambitious and even make it worse. Or how about the VA and its backlog?

You forever “believers” are finally starting to smell the coffee burning, aren’t you? Obamacare is not just an indictment on Obama, its a conviction on the entire Big-Government apparatus and its legislative “process”. Did you miss how IRS has been used? Maybe you will give all that a smidgeon of thought at the next election. Hint, don’t listen to those voices in your head – they were lying the last time.

Kaiser Poll: Half of Country Still Has Negative View of Obamacare

Friday, 31 Jan 2014 | Newsmax
By Melanie Batley

Almost half of Americans have an unfavorable view of Obamacare, according to a new poll, but an even higher percentage believe that opponents of the new healthcare law should work to improve it rather than repeal it.

According to a survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted Jan. 14-21, 50 percent of the 1,506 adults surveyed have an unfavorable view of Obamacare, compared to 34 percent who have a favorable view.

At the same time, 55 percent of those surveyed — including three in 10 of those who view the law unfavorably — say opponents should accept the law and work on fixing it. Fewer than four in 10 want opponents to keep up the repeal fight.

Among the survey respondents were 173 who identified themselves as presently uninsured, the main group the healthcare law is supposed to help the most. The poll found that 47 percent of the uninsured respondents had a negative view of the law, even though half of them said they were unfamiliar with the law’s mandate provision and the exchanges set up to help the uninsured find coverage.

Still, the survey revealed that the percentage of those uninsured with a favorable view of the law has decreased significantly since a December Kaiser poll, when 36 percent of uninsured respondents had a positive view compared to 43 percent who had a negative view.

Just 24 percent of the uninsured respondents now have a favorable view.

Among the uninsured — a key group for outreach under the law — unfavorable views now outnumber favorable views by roughly a 2-to-1 margin,” the Kaiser survey report noted.

The poll also shows that more of those without coverage say the law has made the uninsured, as a group, worse off than better off by a margin of 39 percent to 26 percent.

“Despite these views, large shares of the uninsured see health insurance as ‘very important’ and say they need it, while four in 10 say they’ve tried to get coverage in the past six months, and half expect to get it this year,” the report said.

H/T to Dave for the articles

RightRing | Bullright