Dismantling Obamacare is the Key to Reducing the Deficit

Every dollar the government taxes from us or spends is a drag on the economy, not to mention all the rules and regulations that make business more expensive. Right now, individuals and corporations are paying out the nose for various Obamacare taxes: it is vacuuming up all the loose money, money which our economy needs to grow and create jobs.

There is an old joke: if you think it is expensive now, wait till the government makes it free. Right now, today, health insurance premiums across the board (assuming your policy has not been canceled) are going up in order pay for all of the freebies that Obamacare will supposedly give out. Worse, the benefits have yet to flow to the poor.

Yes, medical care is a terrible financial strain for poor families and the elderly. The reason it is so is because a huge government bureaucracy controls much of it. To paraphrase one of the greatest presidents of all time: government is the problem, not the cure. Obamacare, yet even more government bureaucracy, will not reduce its cost or increase availability.

The real solution to expensive health care costs is corporate America. Try: healthcare clinics in Walmart supplying routine medical care inexpensively while you shop for groceries, clothes, fishing poles, and really ugly lampshades, not to mention birth control pills for $20 a month, or getting flu shots for $30 at Safeway or Walgreens. Why not commoditize medical care, like we did to PCs or TVs or sneakers?  

“assault rifle” - ain't no such thing

See, my dad and all my uncles were in various wars, and had real training in military firearms. My generation, baby boomers, and those of you who are after that point, for the most part have never been in the military and have not had the official firearm training or experience in combat.

Obama and his gun control obsessed allies are counting on this ignorance, and hoping that you personally do not know the difference.

There are only 2 types of firearms: military and civilian, and never the twain shall meet. 

There is a class of civilian rifles that are really just ordinary civilian pop-guns made to look like scary, powerful military weapons. From my viewpoint, these are humorous jokes, and this especially applies to the heavily cosmetically altered AR-15s and “Bushmasters”. These are really just long-barreled 22s with a slightly faster muzzle velocity. Big fat hairy deal.

And, no, a large capacity magazine does not alter the calculus.

This is what a famous gun control Senator (he/she will probably want me to mention the name) wishes to ban. How impotent and useless.

I can field-strip, clean and lubricate (3-in-1-oil, as I recall), and reassemble an AK-47, but only because a friend whose hobby is gunsmithing showed me how, for my copy which I got on sale for like $250 at a gun show. OK, truth, it was so long ago I have forgotten how. But I did shoot it at a gun range, and I can assure you that the accuracy and killing power is not as good as your standard hunting rifle.

Neither the AR-15 nor the AK-47 are assault weapons, because ain't no such thing. It has been illegal for civilians to possess military firearms since even before WW2, and still is.  

Lance Armstrong and Hillary Clinton – from hero to zero

• The greatest bicyclist of all time, dominating the grueling Tour de France for nearly a decade.
• A primary physiological specimen: rumored to have lung and heart capacity double of normal.
• Cancer survivor, and inspiration to millions who are similarly afflicted.
• Raised a mountain of money to help battle cancer.

He was also a liar and a cheat: all along, he was using blood doping, illegal steriods, god-only-knows what else.

I suppose the current controversy is: does not the good he did at least partially out weigh his very human failings? In my book, certainly not. I have been in the public spotlight more than once, and I can assure you that veracity is the difference between success and a good life, or crashing and burning. I chose the former, what's-his-name chose the latter. You be the judge.

If you have not removed that idiotic wristband in disgust and publicly burned it, then you are an idiot or just stubborn. Perhaps I am wrong, but St. Peter will be the ultimate judge.

The outgoing SecState is in a similar position. In her testimony to the Senate yesterday, she shed great alligator tears and displayed great anger and outrage re Benghazi. Problem: she is fibbing big time, and everyone knows it.

This has turned her rumored rerun for the Presidency in 2016 into nothing more than entertaining cocktail party chitchat.  

The Han, Tibet, Mongolia: Is China Racist?

First, I must explain to you European-folks the meaning of “Han”. See, there are many rather disparate ethnic racial groups who reside within the borders of Red China, but many are not “Chinese” in the Western sense. The Han are the dominant racial group, but are certainly not the only ethnic group residing within the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Sigh...I am getting just a wee bit tired of hearing of young Tibetan Buddhists self-immolating in protest. I am even more annoyed by the arrogant and seemingly racist attitude of the ruling Han Chinese in Peking (from my viewpoint, the fact that they are evil Communists is rather besides the point).

Let us consider two distinct, non-Chinese countries: Mongolia and Tibet. From the seemingly arrogant attitude of the Han, these 2 groups should be grateful for introduction of cheap plastic dinner plates, porcelain toilets, and coal-powered locomotives. Are not the Han materially, philosophically, intellectually, and culturally superior? Why should not these 2 backward countries welcome “progress”? Why are they not metaphysically thankful to the Han?

Let us draw an analogy. For much of our history, we had a rather regrettable attitude towards blacks, hillbillies, and Cajuns. We viewed them as poor, stupid, backwards, and uneducated just ripe for introduction to modern society and morays. The attitude of the Han towards Mongolia and Tibet is eerily similar and equally wrong.

No, Not Just the CCP

I can hear the screams of protestation from Chinese: no, you are wrong, because you are thinking only of the attitude of the CCP.

Au contraire, mon ami.

This attitude towards Tibet and Mongolia is pervasive throughout all strata of Chinese society for many centuries, including those whose lives are untouched by the CCP.

It is this fact that convinces me that Chinese are much more racist than their European counterparts. True, these 2 countries have been under the military/political control of Peking for much of recent history, but only under the heel of a jackboot rather than from a cultural or voluntary affinity.

IMHO, the Han do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.  

Establishment Republicans = cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys

(cultural reference | Fox | 1995 | The Simpsons | school janitor Willie)

OK – let us review. Republicans spend much political capital battling the CIC over taxes and the budget, and they seemingly drew a line-in-the-sand. The fight over the 'fiscal cliff' was headline material for weeks. The battle is now over. What was the result?

• Mr. O did not give an inch, did not cut a single $1 bill from the federal gov't
• Republicans did exactly what is theoretically antithetical to them: a huge tax increase
• Surrender, and the parallel to Marshall Petain is is eerie
• Mr. O did his traditional end-zone dance, gleefully spiking the football

Worse, word came down from the White House at the last minute that the bill must include the so-called 'Bacchus Bill'. This is your traditional $50b Congressional Christmas tree full of ornaments courtesy of you favorite millionaire-lobbyist:

• $50 million in tax breaks for Mr. O's allies in Hollywood
• real estate tax credits for Goldman-Sachs
• tax credits for GE's algae-power

This monstrosity was cut 'n paste lock, stock, and barrel into the final bill handed to the Senate 5 minutes before they were expected to vote on said stupidity. Establishment Republicans could have simply signed off on the bill Mr. O originally demanded during the summer, to similar effect. At least then, they would not have had to also voted for the Bacchus Bill, which spends about the same amount in pork that it raises in tax increases. For Mr. O, this is a rhetorical victory rather than a mathematical one: see, everyone agrees (even House Republicans) that millionaires and billionaires have to “do their fair share”.

So, what was the point of this grand Kabuki dance?

Do Not Kill The Messenger

The House Speaker is the natural lightening rod for this failure, but I wonder if this would not be a case of killing the messenger for just bringing the bad news. The Republican party has two forces, and never the twain shall meet: feckless Country Club Republicans and the Tea Party. The problem under consideration could well be simply viewed as the victory of the former symbolized by Boehner. I am not defending this, but merely pointing out that this conflict predates the current Speaker.