Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Health Care for Everyone?

Heath care for everyone has now become the premiere platform of the Demoncratic Party.  Let’s assume for just one moment that the Demoncrats succeed in getting the legislation needed.  The cheers would be deafening but at the end of the day will be a reality check, for which I have already touted in a prior blog. 

Here are the sad facts…
·        When the ACA became law, it was not too long after that over 16 million people lost their health care coverage.  Yes, I know that 11 million policies were dropped, but what the media did not tell you is that one policy covered up to 4 people.

·        Hospitals that did not rely upon government subsidies closed their doors—this happened in mostly rural areas, for which many patients had to commute more than one hour to get to a hospital.


·        Many doctors quit their profession because of the government regulations significantly reduced the amount of money a doctor received for his or her services, which also resonated with medical students at that time, and dropped their medical studies.  The above is just one reason we have a deficit of more than 20,000 doctors nationwide.

·        Open up the employment section of any local newspaper and view the plethora of display ads, in a desperate attempt to find nurses and technicians for the medical industry.


·        Yes, “You can keep your plan and keep your doctor,” but conveniently left out ‘if you can afford it.’  And in some cases, the premiums exceeded over one-hundred percent.  Obama was covered, and so were those who touted the ACA, who were exempt from the ACA, and had Cadillac coverage.

·        With the current costs of health care, and applying health care for everyone at this very moment, will most certainly exceed the military budget.  The key here is, “Who is going to pay for it?”  Anyone who had complained about their paychecks and the consequential government grab for a “piece of the action,” before President Trump provided some great relief, are going to discover half their pay is going to pay for “Health Care for Everyone.”


·        The “Federal Mandate” for the ACA that was to take place in 2017 was to be the final nail in the coffin for every American worker, for which would come under the jurisdiction of the “Instant Rip-off Service,” or more commonly known as the “IRS.”  The above means that the financing for the ACA would be deducted from all paychecks;  “Medicare for Everyone” will most certainly accomplish this, because it will be a single-payer, government-sponsored system.

·        The appalling thing that Obama did to kick-start the ACA was to rob Medicare of 900 million dollars to fund the ACA.  Who or what is going to ‘take the hit’ when “Medicare for Everyone” takes place?  Oh yes, when Obama robbed Medicare, some once enjoyed benefits were lost forever—this was a big hit on our senior citizens.


·        The ACA did one more thing that should infuriate most people.  Obama had meetings with health care insurers before the ACA was passed, but the context of those meetings did not surface until it was too late.  It was the way it surfaced when the financial reports were made known publically about the health care insurer’s profits—their profits went from 8 billion per year to 15 billion per year.  Now, where does one think that money came from—the taxpayers, of course.

The above kind of Socialism has been both tried and failed in several countries before us.  It is impossible to have viable paid health care for everyone.  The shortage of doctors, nurses, technicians, and other health care support personnel is enough all by itself to end the debate.  Okay, have “Medicare for Everyone.” And watch the health of nearly everyone fail dramatically…why…with all the shortages of medical personnel, all health care recipients would be hard-pressed to secure a timely appointment.  As laudable as providing health care for everyone is, this issue has not been well thought out on the part of the Demoncrats.  And the media is just as reckless for this support.


Thursday, January 17, 2019

President Trump Body Slams Nancy Pelosi; War in the Middle East

I see some in the media who are wincing as to what President Trump did to Pelosi and company.  Yes, I was openly disappointed in my prior blog, but I suppose when President Trump grounded a demoncratic brat, is a close second to what he missed the last week.  There is no doubt that both the House Majority leader and the President have engaged in “trench warfare,” for which neither will jeopardize their positions. 

Lindsey Graham complained about how “sophomoric” both Pelosi and Trump are behaving, for which one tweet described it as a Nah, Nah, Poo, Poo politicing.  All this political bickering is going nowhere, but this is Washington D.C., for which is a metaphoric “swamp,” and swamps don’t move very much. 

The only action that has made any difference in Washington, D.C., is President Trump pen.  Every one of President Trump’s “actions” has done nothing less than positive effects; massive employment, for which there are now more jobs than people to fill them, and at least 24 other positives that have boosted our economy.  According to former President Obama, when touting; “What magic wand will Trump wave,” President Trump has achieved the impossible by bringing manufacturing back to the United States.  If any country is not exporting; eventually that particular nation has closed the book on growth. 

Capitalism, in short, is, “Find a need and fill it.”  The United States was for a time, a republic.  However, an almost unnoticed number of events took place within our government, in the latter half of the 19th century, for which our nation transformed from a republic to a democracy.  In a democracy, a government finds a way to tax the economy.  As a “Republic” the United States government was financed through tariffs.  The individual income tax is a form of slavery.  Consider; how long does one work to pay the income tax; 3 to 4 months out of the year perhaps?  The translation is to be from one quarter to one-third a “slave.”

In early America, Americans did not take too kindly to being taxed and receiving no benefits; most of all, without representation.  Britain was rather busy prosecuting wars, with either France or Spain, and money is the grease that lubricates a military machine.  Today, this is known as the “Military Industrial Complex.”  We already know what proceeded after that, which is not unlike the workings of the Instant Rip-off Service, when they feel they are short-changed.  Yes, the IRS has sent military people out to not only confiscate but also to prosecute. 

The recent attack in Syria that killed a few Americans was no coincidence, in regards to the timing—this particular attack came almost immediately after President Trump’s announcement of pulling our troops out of Syria.  This particular attack was not a response from ISIS but was a response from the “Military Industrial Complex,” who prompted the opposition to make this attack happen.  Remember what I have written in a prior blog—“If there were no profit in war there would be less of it.”  Before the “Military Industrial Complex,” wars were far shorter than they have been since after North Korea.  Endless wars, fill the coffers of the “Military Industrial Complex,” endlessly.  Yes, we need the military, but not to be engaged in wars to profit the few.

The key to the defunding of the “Military Industrial Complex,” is to make it illegal for any legislature to have investments in any company that produces or provides material to make military equipment.  Another venue would be for any owner and workers employed in the manufacture of military equipment and supplies, to pay them no more than those who are willing to spill their blood.  I said it before, and it bears repeating; we do not have any business to be involved in another’s civil war or to be actively involved in changing a regime.  In addition, if Muslims are not fighting their enemies, they are still engaged in killing one another. 

To qualify this last statement about the Muslims, to wit: Genesis 16:1-12, Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
12 And he will be a wild man*; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.


*Some translations give the following description, “a wild ass of a man.”  Therefore it is of no surprise as to what transpires in regards to Muslims, for which if they do not assimilate into the American society, they will cause much havoc within our nation, for which they have already gained allies in the courts and our political system.

Monday, January 14, 2019

President Trump Missed a Pivotal Opportunity…

As much as I support President Trump in getting the wall, I am rather disappointed he missed a valuable political opportunity that both the MSM and the Demoncrats would never forget.  It would have been the greatest “sweet revenge” for all the heartache to the “Angel Families” who lost loved ones.

President Trump should have announced, at the same time when the wheels of the private jet hit the tarmac of the airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico, to declare a “National Emergency.” to get his wall funded.  The news would most certainly be on the monitors of the lobby of the airport, when both the Demoncrats and the lobbyists who most likely funded the junket, would have their jaws drop to the floor, as they disembarked, and completely spoil the bribe. 

Also, President Trump could have announced that he would not sign anything to fund Puerto Rico’s financial mismanagement further—this would be salt to rub deeply into the wound.  One of the reasons for this particular junket was to lobby for more funding for Puerto Rico.  There is no doubt that the tens of thousands of dollars the lobbyists invested for the flight, rental cars, hotels and probably the “Hamilton Show,” would be miffed beyond belief.  


The above would have been a paradox for the Demoncrats, as to what to do next.  They could reach into their deep corrupt pockets and get a return flight back to Washington, or make a noble attempt to enjoy themselves through the generosity of their hosts.  Oh, my dear President Trump—my hands are in my face because you lost a political opportunity that would have been well-remembered in the history books.  One can only hope that you might have something else in mind, but alas, I strongly feel that you have been far too generous with these venomous Demoncrats.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

The 2020 Demoncratic Platform in Two Words

HATE TRUMP…

It seems that no matter if President Trump turns to the right or to the left, he can do nothing correctly according to both the Demoncrats and the Mainstream Media (MSM).  Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign was also about resisting Trump at every turn but did not have any other issue, with the exception of the usual political platitudes.

Is it possible that hating any white person is not a “Hate Crime?”  So-called “Hate Crimes” are not crimes, unless there is a constitutionally injured party.  “Hate Crimes” stem from the mind and come out of the mouth.  There are no weapons involved that can physically induce harm, requiring medical attention. 

There is much talk about “equity in law”, or “equal protection of the laws” but does anyone who touts this particular phrase, fully understand what it means?  According to a law dictionary, authored by Steven H. Gifis, states the following under the word “equity”, to wit: most generally “justice.”  Historically, “equity” developed as a separate body of law in England in reaction to the inability of the common law courts, in their strict adherence to rigid writs and forms of action to entertain or provide a remedy for every injury.  The King, therefore, established the high court of chancery, the purpose of which was to do justice between parties in those cases where the common law would give no or inadequate redress.  Equity law to a large extent was formulated in maxims, such as “equity suffers not a right without a remedy,” or “equity follows the law,” meaning that equity will derive a means to achieve a lawful result when legal procedure is inadequate.  Equity and law are no longer bifurcated but are now merged in most jurisdictions, though equity jurisprudence and equitable doctrines are still independently viable. See 29 N.Y.S. 342, 343, 6 N.Y.S. 2d 720, 721, 293 F. 633, 637.

Equity in law cannot survive the magnification of so-called “rights” of special interest groups—this by itself offers nothing more than “private law(s)” that are narrowly defined within those groups, such as women’s groups or LGBTQ persons, who are de-natured by choice, and fully expect to be protected by “special laws” also known as “hate crimes,” for which any rejections of those from outside those groups can easily be construed as “hate crimes.” 

It is quite a comedy when relatives are gathered together within a family, and in most cases, it is the hostess who sets the places at a table of who is going to be seated where.  This behavior is precisely what special interest groups are experiencing when they expect to be protected.  The point is that laws that define a hate crime are never founded in equity.  The hostess who is setting the table can be likened to a judge, who is doling out judgments according to one’s situation to the one seated next to them.

Now comes the fun part—when an incident occurs within this table setting, will determine the seating arrangement at the next family gathering—this can also be applied to the rights of those within special interest groups, who upon an incident will be in a different place when another incident takes place that is construed as a “hate crime.” As long as we abandon “equal protection of the laws” and opt for special laws—it will be a never-ending of layer upon layer of laws, for which there will never be any justice.  “The more laws the less justice.” Thomas Jefferson 

By the way… “racism” is not a crime, but there is an extreme school of thought that has purported this idea and is being touted by both politicians and the MSM.  “Racism” is a morality issue, in other words, “a choice” and not a matter of law.  We can choose to be hateful or likable.  Let me give you a personal example; I was employed by a male gay couple, to do work on their house.  They have an RV that they allowed me to dwell in during my employment.  I was well aware of their living situation prior to me being hired, for which I had no problem with their chosen lifestyle, even though their practice is unnatural.  However, I am not sitting in the judgment seat and have accepted their choice because that is their right to make that choice, and I respect that choice even though I do not agree with it.

I could have easily have refused to do business with them, and I have that right to make that choice—it is not “racism” or a “hate crime,” if I have chosen not to do business with them.  The exact same thing is true with a baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple.  What is happening in such cases is action is forced upon someone to produce or sue can also be construed as a “hate crime” against the gay couple, who are practicing the unlawful act of extortion.  The above is what is meant by “equal protection of the laws.”  The law must apply to everyone, or it means nothing.

Wednesday, January 9, 2019

The Future of the Internet

There is a disturbing trend approaching that will happen during this new year, and that is the emergence of AI or artificial intelligence.  This new venue is currently being applied to marketing strategies, to attract customers.  The government has already used a non-human venue when dealing with the public—a numbering system, which ignores the specific needs of individual human beings.  The AI venue is going to treat everyone the same way as does the government—through demographics, and numbers.  The power of both computers and AI will narrow the shotgun approach to marketing.  The AI venue, however, has a dark side—the need to mine data from everyone, and when we do business on our computers, without using encrypted emails and an encrypted VPN, there will be no privacy. 

I have already subscribed to an encrypted email service.  The “free version” of this particular email service has fewer features than many other so-called “free email services, so I opted for the pay version.  I will not have to put up with pop-up advertising, or any advertising, which slows down computer response time and sometimes freezes a computer.  I paid a very reasonable price for this service, and will soon have a fully encrypted VPN service.

Another disturbing venue is also in the works, and that is being able to have full access to the Internet.  The Chinese Government has already quashed much of this access and may soon reach our shores—the program is called “Dragonfly.”  The United States version might be more capitalistic.  The more access you want, the more you will have to pay for it.  Therefore only the rich will have full and unfettered access to the Internet, but of course, all access will be monitored under “Dragonfly.”

When using “Gmail,” Google keeps all that mail for data mining.  “Gmail” is not encrypted and therefore subject to hacking, and the increased possibility of identity theft.  Although “Gmail” is free, there is still a price to pay—“We interrupt your Internet activities for this commercial announcement… your computer may slow down or freeze, but this is the price one pays for having a free email account.” 


There is no such thing as “privacy” when dealing with a socialist type of government, or the prying eyes of corporations that inventory our names into a data bank for further use.  Google owns this blog site I am currently using, and I don’t believe they will be flattered by this particular treatise, which means this blog can be pulled at anytime.  However, if this blog is not pulled, it will be because this blog does not carry a large audience.  

Monday, January 7, 2019

The True Reason, the United States Military, is in the Middle East

There was a stern warning from President Eisenhower to the newly elected President Kennedy which states, “Watch out for the Military Industrial Complex.”  President Kennedy heeded this warning by making efforts to keep the United States out of Vietnam.  The French were there for one-hundred years before the United States getting involved, for which the French were not shy about informing the United States to stay out of Vietnam.  One might suppose when one is a guest for one-hundred years and got the message that they may have overstayed their welcome. 

It was not until President Johnson inherited the presidency that the United States became fully involved in Vietnam.  I think a good hint of this venue comes from the mouth of the then President Johnson, when he stated, “You now have your war.”  There should be no doubt President Johnson was specifically addressing “The Military Industrial Complex.”  
 
Generally speaking, there is some rudimentary knowledge among the general population about how Washington D.C. operates.  The elite political community ignores all semblance of law and morality, to embrace both power and money.  Major General--Smedley Darlington Butler made a speech during the 1930s titled, “War is a Racket.”  To make a very long treatise very short can be summarized in the following few words—take all the profit out of war and there will be less of it.  One particular specific stood out quite overtly, which states; we need to pay all those who provide all the implements of war the same as the soldier who is willing to spill his/her blood.

During World War II a number of both millionaires and billionaires were created.  However, none of them had to go overseas; dressed in olive drab; carrying some weapon; marching for miles, until such time they had to duck for cover; many times going without a hot meal and digging trenches; not to mention a rather meager pay for risking one’s life and limb.

Vietnam dragged on for ten years without a victory—we simply left when the handwriting was on the wall.  “The Military Complex” made billions of dollars at the cost of over 50,000 lives, not including four lives at Kent State University.  The only lesson taken from the “Vietnam War.,” was not to fight a war from behind a desk.  The message from Major General—Smedley Darlington Butler was never heeded and never will be, until such time we abandon human greed.  Or perhaps we might consider screening all our Washington representatives, as to who is on the receiving end of money coming from military contractors.  Money from the venue of “The Military Complex”  is one precipitating reason why General Madis left the Trump Administration.

We seem to be in a constant “state of war,” for which there seems to be no exit strategy—why—because there is a non-stop flow of money into the pockets of the beneficiaries of all war.  We did not go into Iraq the second time because of weapons of mass destruction—that was an outright lie.  Also, no country has no business interfering in another’s civil war.   President Trump is correct by declaring a pull-out from the Middle East, but the establishment Republicans are flatly against such a movement, and there is no need for me to explain further.

Moreover, there is a way to deal with all radical Muslim terrorism—all without firing a shot.  The answer was given in one of my prior blogs some years ago.