The Trouble with Trump, Republicans and Obamacare

I’m not optimistic about the demise of Obamacare.  Watching Republicans deal with this ticking time bomb for the past eight years has been like watching the Keystone Cops handle a stick of dynamite with a lighted fuse.  Oh there’s a handful who know what they’re doing, but they’re hindered by the clowns who haven’t got a clue, a sad reminder that conservatives don’t get to choose who dons the ‘Republican’ label.  First they talked about repealing it.  Then this became “repeal and replace” after Republicans predictably fell into the Left’s trap of adopting the “healthcare system” rhetoric and assuming ownership in the event they “break” Obamacare, LOL.  With conflicts and debates about what the “replacement” should entail, Republicans naturally can’t agree on how to proceed.  Meanwhile Obama and his leftist cohorts are rubbing their hands together with glee because many Americans are bound to be unhappy, and unhappiness fuels the divide that keeps the Democrat Party alive.  They know too many foolish Republicans will not be able to resist the temptation to attempt the impossible – and potentially suicidal – task of trying to please everyone, including even the freeloaders who don’t deserve to be pleased.  That will be their doom.

Here at home I’m banging my head against the wall because this dilemma over how to proceed would resolve itself quite easily if only Republicans would go back to their conservative roots (assuming they have any, which I concede is taking a lot for granted) and begin by asking one fundamental question, which is as follows:

 

Every undertaking by congress should begin with a similarly simple question.  That’s how the Constitution was intended to work, and if Republicans would only remember this their jobs would be infinitely simpler and clearer; but of course they don’t remember it which is why they’re struggling.  I would say the same for Democrats except we all know that the Constitution never matters to them except in those instances where it can be used to constrain Republicans.

How incredibly tragic is it that our brilliant founding fathers gave congress the perfect procedure manual for how to do their jobs but they keep forgetting that it exists?  Instead they run around in circles like the axiomatic headless chickens, tripping over each other and mucking up the coop.  Just for the fun of it, let’s look at what would happen if Republicans would take my simple advice and begin their deliberations by answering the question above.

Let’s start with the right answer first, which is, of course, “No.”  The federal government has neither the responsibility nor the authority to ensure that every American has healthcare under the Constitution.  As I promised that makes the job of congress very simple on this issue, because it can’t get any simpler than doing nothing.  But alas it’s too late for simple because Democrats already set us on the wrong path by ignoring the Constitution and failing to answer the question correctly.  The flow chart cannot be held responsible for human error, and since we have unnecessarily complicated our lives the extrication will be more complicated than it should have been and yet it still will be exponentially simpler than continuing down the wrong path as I will demonstrate shortly.

If the correct answer is “No,” then the next step is easy and clear:

 

“But what about the millions of people who are going to be uninsured now?!” some will whine.

Go back to your fundamental question:  Is it the federal government’s constitutional responsibility to ensure every American has healthcare?

The answer is still “No,” and it must remain “No” no matter how much whining and how many tragedies are predicted to occur as a consequence of following the Constitution.  There is no caveat in the Constitution that says, “Follow these rules unless some people are unhappy.”  People who are getting free or subsidized healthcare at someone else’s expense are always going to be unhappy when that’s taken away.  The solution is to create a new path that makes healthcare affordable for those who are willing to earn it rather than giving up and continuing down the wrong path.  Either the free market and/or the states will provide the solutions people need with respect to healthcare if we just get the federal government out of the way, which leads me to the next step in our flowchart: 

 

Sadly this step would not be necessary if not for the fact that Congress has ignored the Constitution so many times up to this point, but alas it has and so it complicates what would otherwise be a simple flowchart.

Finally, I’d like to suggest one more step:

 

This is the one thing the federal government could do to facilitate the free market process of healthcare delivery, because as it stands now we are expected to be consumers in a market where we are virtually blind, and this puts us at an impossible disadvantage.  If the government can dictate that McDonalds has to publish the calorie count of a Big Mac for the good of the consumer, then certainly a much greater good yet would be to ensure consumers have the tools they need to make informed choices about healthcare services.  That should be the extent of the federal government’s involvement, in my humble opinion.

The last box in the “No” path of the flowchart would therefore be:

 

See how simple that was even with having to fix our prior missteps?  Okay, it won’t be simple because there are a lot of missteps to undo along the way, but at least the path is clear, which is much more than we can say now.  We know how to get from here to there if only we stay focused on our fundamental question:   Is it the federal government’s constitutional responsibility to ensure every American has healthcare?  And stay firm on the answer:  No.

Now let’s consider what the flowchart looks like if we answer incorrectly, i.e. “Yes” (and let me say that if you answered “Yes” you’re not a conservative).  Imagine a long series of flowchart boxes, one after another, with laws and regulations you’re already familiar with:  EMTALA, Medicaid legislation, Obamacare…..plus a whole lot more to come as the powers that be stumble around attempting to fix the inevitable failures of these misguided laws with yet more misguided laws.  Skipping to the end of the flowchart here’s what you’ll find:

 

That’s right.  If you incorrectly answer “Yes” to the question of whether the federal government is responsible to ensure that all Americans have healthcare, the “Yes” path can only lead to one place:   socialized medicine,  and all that this implies:  the shortages, the long waits, costs based not on what service you received but on how much money you make, and the worst thing of all:  people forced to participate against their will.  Is this what Republicans want?  We could go through it step by step but why should that be necessary?  We already know what happens as a consequence of answering “Yes” when we should have answered “No.”  We have history to look upon, and what’s that famous quote about failing to learn the lessons of history?  History is too often forgotten, just like the Constitution.

There’s so much more to say and I could go on, but for now, as my old friend Mrs. AL used to say, just munge on that for a while.

~CW

To leave a comment please follow this link to see my post at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!

No Moral Equivalence Between Anti-Trump Protestors and Tea Party

The Tea Party cause:  righteous, noble, anger-worthy

The Anti-Trump cause:  phony, immoral, bratty

“Almost all absurdity of conduct arises from the imitation of those whom we cannot resemble.”

― Samuel Johnson, The Rambler

One of the funniest lines I heard throughout the crazy presidential campaign was Michelle Obama’s wildly laughable claim that “When they go low, we go high.”  This from the wife of the guy who famously called on his supporters to punish their enemies.  Some people suffer from delusions of grandeur.  Democrats suffer from delusions of righteousness.  The latest case in point is the bizarre comparison some are making between the pointless protests of rage that have spoiled the landscape since the election of Donald Trump and the angry protests that emerged in response to the anti-liberty agenda of Barack Obama.  There’s absolutely zero moral equivalence between the two.

We live by a contract in this nation.  It’s called the Constitution.  The contract essentially says, ‘You respect my rights as outlined below and in return I will respect yours, and we won’t need to go to war with each other.’  It’s a truce, when you get right down to it, but sadly human nature dictates that some will never be satisfied with the mutual respect of basic freedoms.  As the Founders predicted would happen, the truce is constantly under siege by those who seek to expand their own “rights” on the backs of others, and little by little they’ve made progress to that end, hence the term “progressivism.”  For the most part the progress has been slow and incremental, as the progressives have been careful to avoid that one giant overstep that will finally cause the other side to give up the truce and push back with violence.  With the election of Barack Obama, however, the tactics changed.  Obama came to town saying, for all intents and purposes, “We’re going to take what we want.”  And what they wanted and got was the taxpayers’ wealth in the form of massive welfare expansion and expanded government.    The Tea Party and its peaceful protests were a righteous response to the assault Obama led on our rights and on the Constitution.  It was, if anything, too tame in my humble opinion; nonetheless it was a cause that was morally rooted just as the American Revolution was moral in its roots.

Fast forward to today and the silly tantrums masquerading as righteous anger by the regressive progressives.  What are these supposedly noble causes driving the leftwingers out of their student centers and coffee houses en masse?  Do they really think there’s something morally righteous about fighting for the right to continue a lawless immigration coup?   “The law for me, but not for thee,” is that it?  We all have a right to an opinion on immigration, and by contract that right is exercised through our representatives in Congress when they write the laws.  Anything else isn’t righteousness it’s thuggery.  That’s Rule #1.

What else are you angry about, dear snowflakes and thumb-suckers?  Some imaginary assault on women and minorities?  Made-up bans on entire religions?  Fairy tales about white supremacy?

Rule #2:  Protests driven by fake news are fake protests.

I have a bit of news for you.  If you only love democracy when you get your way then you don’t love democracy at all.  You’re just a wannabe tyrant with a stupid sign.

 ~CW

To leave a comment on this and other posts please follow me at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!

You Might Be Low-Information If……

You don't mind sitting through an entire episode of ‘The View.’

Your man-on-the-street interview with ‘Watter’s World’ made the cut for TV.

This is the first time you’re hearing the term “low-information.”

You were glued to the TV when Nancy Pelosi explained to us what a scapegoat is.

You had to Google “Nancy Pelosi.”

You think “social justice” has something to do with social justice.

The prospect of immigration enforcement shocks you.

You think The Huffington Post is a news website.

You can’t remember what the front of your protest sign says.

You think Donald Trump is evil for banning worldwide travel and the religion of Islam.

You bring a coin to the booth with you when you vote.

You approved of Barack Obama.

You think ‘fake news’ is a new phenomenon.

You’re 34 and plan to retire on Social Security.

You’re parading topless to protest gender inequality.

You think globalization is cool.  Wait….what’s globalization?

You still think winning a Pulitzer Prize is something to brag about.

You can’t name one member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

You aren’t deaf, dumb or blind but still believe the U.S. is the worst country on Earth.

You can’t hear the opinions of others because you’re too busy shouting them down.

~CW

Want to add to the list?  Visit me at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!

Maya Kosoff and Fake Headlines at Vanity Fair

I once picked up an issue of Vanity Fair that someone had left lying around.  I wasn’t impressed.  It was, as is typical for every magazine aimed at a female audience, saturated in leftwing politics.  How bold, eh?  Not a one of them can summon the courage to challenge the stereotypical notion that all women are liberals, and that’s a big disappointment for this lady.

So I had to laugh today when I stumbled upon this headline from Vanity Fair: 

“SENATE REPUBLICANS SILENCED ELIZABETH WARREN FOR READING A LETTER BY CORETTA SCOTT KING”

By Maya Kosoff

Of course, any honest person who’s been following this story understands that Elizabeth Warren lost her speaking privileges because she broke the senate rules about not impugning another senator, but that kind of headline wouldn’t advance the Left’s agenda and journalism exists for the purpose of advancing the Left’s agenda, right?  Silly you if you thought it was about informing the public and letting the public form its own conclusions.  The feeble-minded public must always be nudged in the right direction by those who understand these things so much better than they do.

We can debate about whether or not the senate rule is a good rule or whether it’s been applied fairly.  That’s not the point of this post.  This post is about fake news created by fake headlines, a trick of the Left’s trade that’s been going on since before I was born.  A headline that says Republicans silenced Warren for reading Coretta King’s letter would be akin to a headline declaring that Democrats were up in arms because Donald Trump issued an Executive Order.   One can almost excuse Ms. Kosoff since she was taking her cue from Elizabeth Warren herself who, in typical leftist fashion, tried to make it seem as though Republicans had a problem with Coretta King rather than her; but substance matters.  Ms. Kosoff needs to put on her big-girl panties and see if she can make it as a journalist without resorting to fake news.  In the meantime I thank her and Vanity Fair for providing another perfect example of why liberals should never be trusted to report the news. 

~CW

To comment on this post please follow this link to The Pesky Truth blog site.  Thanks!

Understanding the Left’s Love Affair with Islam

They say politics makes strange bedfellows, and boy are they ever right.  Nothing could be stranger – on the surface - than the Left’s sudden and nearly fanatical embrace of those who hail from the Muslim faith.  After spending the better part of the past century belittling organized religion and bombarding our courts with challenges to anything that smacks of religion in a governmental setting, the Left has suddenly discovered a newfound loathing for religious intolerance.    These are the same people who condescendingly sneer about “flying spaghetti monsters” and “bible thumpers,” but Islam and the Koran?  That’s all good with the Left for some reason.  And if you think it’s odd that the purported champions of women’s issues and gay rights are now ferociously defending a religious group that mistreats women and gays, well you would be right.  It is indeed odd. 

They say if something doesn’t make sense then it isn’t true.  Well it doesn’t make sense that the Left has made itself the best friend of the Muslim community on the basis of their love for religious freedom.  If they stood for religious freedom as a principle they’d be taking up the mantel of Christians as well, and yet the opposite is true.  Christians are routinely under attack by the Left.  So now the question is, why would the Left go out of its way to pamper and appease Muslims?

To thoroughly explain the Left requires a bit of time and a good psychiatric dictionary but to keep it pithy I’ll sum it up this way:  Liberalism is a mental disorder that manifests itself as an absence of maturity.  A liberal is an adult child with a child’s constant need to gratify his ego, so much of what liberals do is for the purpose of showing the rest of us how superior they are.  Liberals also crave power and control.  Every odd thing they do can be explained by understanding these simple truths. 

After 9-11 most Americans naturally began to look at Islam and Muslims with a bit more circumspection because that was the reasonable thing to do given the horror that transpired.  Liberals allowed us to grieve for about five minutes before they could no longer resist the prime opportunity they saw to feed their massive egos and to divide us in ways that could be politically useful to them.  After all, Muslims vote, don’t they?  They set out on a devious mission to portray our natural, self-protective instincts as “hate” and “religious bigotry” so that they could smugly show us how much more open-minded and resistant to stereotyping they are (not that the Left never stereotypes, but when they do they have good reasons, you see).  The truth is that there was commendably little backlash against peaceful Muslims following the bloody carnage of 9-11, but rather than applaud our maturity and restraint liberals began incessantly campaigning for “tolerance” as if Muslims were the ones under attack.  Muslims - the latest conquests to be pulled into the Democrat Party’s harem - are now the honorary guests of Democrats at highly visible events such as the State of the Union address, where they are paraded out like orphans at a charity telethon.  The intent is to create a false narrative of pervasive bigotry on the Right and foment a sense of victimhood among Muslims.  Does that game sound familiar?  It should.  Victimhood, after all, is the Left’s specialty, because when you don’t have principles to unify your party, you need victims.  And it’s working, of course. 

Read:  The real swing vote in presidential election? It could be Muslim American voters.

Guess which way the Muslim vote is trending?  In the year 2000 80% of the Muslim vote went for George Bush.  By 2008 85% of Muslims reportedly voted for Obama.  Now, Democrats, Wikipedia and liberal journalists will tell you that the mass movement of Muslims to the Democrat Party was a consequence of the rhetoric and military policy of George Bush and the “neo-cons.”  But those of us paying careful attention would question whether it was the campaign against Islamic terrorism that turned the tide or whether it was the Left’s orchestrated scheme to cultivate victim status among Muslims that turned the tide.  And though the hard stats are difficult to pin down, one can find article after article talking about the high levels of welfare and other public assistance within the Muslim community, particularly the thousands of refugees brought in by Barack Obama.  Someone remind me which is the party of welfare, and which is the party that threatens (emptily, alas) to turn off the spigot?  

Hmmmm.

Like every other special interest group wooed by the Left, Muslims know a useful idiot when they see one.  Once satisfied to assimilate and reasonably blend with American culture, Muslims now boldly establish Islamic enclaves here, secure in the knowledge that any resistance we show will be attacked by the useful idiots with loud shouts of “Islamophobia” or “religious bigotry.”  They know, as conservatives do, that the Left will foolishly sacrifice anything – even its own culture – for fleeting moments of power and the heady feeling that they’re better than everyone else. 

That’s it in a nutshell, folks.  Muslims and the Left make natural allies.  There are now two Muslims in the U.S. House of Representatives:  Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota, and André Carson, Democrat from Indiana.  Both are radical leftists.  Surpise, surprise.  In February of 2012 USA Today reported that the number of U.S. mosques was up 74% since 2000.  In November of 2014, C-SPAN carried video of the Islamic Opening Prayer to Allah in the House of Representatives.  In the meantime we’ve watched as our friends in countries all over Europe grapple with the consequences of letting their Left prove how open-minded they are over there. 

It’s got nothing to do with religious liberty or religious persecution.  It’s got everything to do with expanding the Democrat Party tent.  The question is:  At what cost to the rest of us? 

~CW

Care to comment?  Visit this post at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!