Never Tire Of Winning: Repealing And Replacing Obamacare

I was writing just yesterday my forecast that at some point, Trump would manage to broker a viable solution for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Apparently, in those same hours a new vote was announced, and the new law obtained a majority in the House today, allegedly with further improvements now expected from the Senate round.

Whilst I am confident this will pass at some point, I will rejoice after the new legislation is definitively passed.

But I can already tell you this: where Paul “UniParty' Ryan failed miserably, twice, Donald Trump has managed to broker a solution that satisfies the Freedom Caucus (and therefore us) whilst not losing the numerous Cuckservatives sadly still present in the House. The Art of the Deal, indeed!

Note how shrewdly the man makes the best of what he has (he does not have a conservative majority in the House, merely a Republican one) and achieves the double objective of making Ryan look like the incompetent cuck he is whilst showing excellent skills in obtaining what can be obtained and reconciling apparently unreconcilable differences.

Also note this: Trump seems to always have the end result in mind. In order to achieve it, he will always be able to make partial concessions or sacrifices down the way. But the final objective he will pursue with grim determination.

As in this case here. Trump let Ryan smash his project against a wall. Then he picked the pieces, put them together, improved them and got House approval for it. Trump looks as statesmanlike as he deserves, Ryan looks like the cuck he is.

This will take more time but I am confident it will succeed. God willing, the 2018 mid-term elections will give the US a real conservative majority and safer number in the Senate. Then we will see a further improvement of this law.

Never tire of winning.

M

Sebelius Bites The Dust

Kathleen Sebelius just before the crash...

Kathleen Sebelius' destiny appeared, to external observers like yours truly, sealed for a while already. It was evident to any halfway skilled observer that a mess like Obamacare would need for people very high in the chain of command to fall on his sword, so that the Emperor may go on living. The approaching mid-term elections also made it utterly unthinkable to continue for much longer without an Officially Sacrificed Scapegoat. Therefore, the female was clearly a goner. Today, it was announced she was finally ordered to fall on her sword. No, they didn't put it this way. But you and I can see through the usual spinmeisters' crap, that persuades only those who don't need persuading.

I now predict Obamacare will undergo the same fate of Communism: as the real existing one continues to wreak havoc in the lives of countless people, the die-hard fans will insist the problem is merely in the implementation, which could have been better, but clearly not in the product itself. Whose fault it is, that Sebelius did not realise the Obamian Utopia, we will never be told. The locusts, probably. The earthquake. Certainly not the godless madness of the Emperor, who is Divine and therefore above success and failure.

Sebelius' political demise marks the day the Obama administration openly – though still not officially – admits Obamacare is a huge liability, and the situation is now called “red alert”. The attempt starts today to say the mess is not Obama's fault. He was betrayed by people he trusted. Not because he is an idiot, but because he flies too high for the dirt and little miseries of this world, where Christians demand that their religious freedom is respected, companies are fed up with having additional costs burdened of them, simple citizens discover every day the same, and everyone realises whenever Barry tells you you can keep something, you had better start saying farewell to it now.

Obamacare is in shambles. The Biggest Possible Scapegoat has been slaughtered today. All the problems remain. Barry has nowhere to hide, though the army of boot lickers will shield him as they can. I don't think the midterm will be a great joy to him, making him even lamer than he is now, and with the party scrambling for a face saving castration of Obamacare before the 2016 elections care for it themselves. We shall see.

But it's good to see Kathleen meet the same end as her almost identical twin, depicted above.

Mundabor

 

Flip-Floppers.

Change?

The latest statement of the so-called Republican candidate Mitt Romney about Obamacare leaves no doubt the strategy of the (so-called) Republican camp is to make Romney as similar as they can to Obama, counting on the fact the traditional Republican electorate will vote for him anyway (for economic reasons at least) and he will be able to mobilise enough of the undecided and middle-of-the-road types (if there can be any middle of the road when Obama is one side of the road) to secure the election.

I see the following problems with this strategy:

1) It is morally despicable;

2) it does not work often; and

3) it is poisonous in the long-term.

1) The strategy is morally despicable because Romney (which might not have any) and his followers (which might have had any) sacrifice what is at least supposed to be their ideological stance to prostitute themselves to the whims of a supposed mainstream, or of groups of voters (the pensioners, say; or the sodomites) for the sake of political calculations. That a person could become the candidate of the Republicans by being tepid on abortion, despicable on perversion and now even openly cowardly on Obamacare can only be explained with the obsession of being just a bit less bad than one’s opponent in order to catch the vote of the bad people who vote for him. I knew the father of “Romneycare” wasn’t the sworn enemy of Obamacare, but Romney has truly sold out and has shown he knows no shame.

2) I wonder, too, whether it will work. Was not this mentality the one who gave the Republicans McCain as their candidate? What makes Romney so different from McCain, particularly considering he fights against the same person, who is now in charge? Why should sincere Republicans feel so motivated to vote for a person  showing his wish to become as similar to his opponent as it is safe for him to do? Did this RINO attitude work for McCain? Is it really so sensible to choose a candidate trying to look as little Republican as possible? If you ask me, the middle of the road is where all the trucks are.

I hate to say it, but in days like these Romney makes me wish he would lose, and lose badly. Painful as it would be for the country – how painful, would depend on how things go in the Senate and the Congress – to see Obama win again, the victory of an Obama-ised Romney would give the country Republican candidates who are almost indistinguishable from the Democratic ones for a long time. If the Republican party apparatus (and, alas, the American Republicans voting at the Primaries) continue to set their hopes on a fake Republican after what the same opponent Obama did to McCain, why should they change their tune if Romney wins? Romney would, then, feel even more motivated to behave as much as he can like Obama. Cameron has done the same in England, Boris is in the process of following him, and in Germany Helmut Kohl acted (at least in economic/social spending matters) in exactly the same way.

Fake conservatives are pure poison. They do not bring in power conservative ideas, but merely a slightly watered-down version of socialist and liberal ones; and those who vote for them because they are just a little less bad than their Democratoc (or Labour; or SPD) opponents actually encourage them to become almost as bad as their opponent, and make it unavoidable that all their candidates will be made from the same mold. 

Unpleasant as it would be to see Obama at the White House for other four years, I wonder how different (from a social/moral perspective at least; I do not doubt some beneficial effects on the deficit and the economy) Romney would be. He’d be a paler version of Obama in all senses of the words, but nothing more than that; and for that, one would lose the opportunity of having a real Republican (and possibly a Christian) in 2016, as the party hopefully abandons the illusions of “middle of the road” candidates after the repeated  disappointments.

It’s less than two months to the elections now and I am afraid this is not the last time Romney will make us cringe. Again, one knew he wasn’t born the  Knight of the Apocalypse, but he is showing a political opportunism of the worst kind, in a manner which is probably not even so electorally wise anymore.

Put it very bluntly: when the choice is between shit and piss, one does not have to vote for the second in order to get rid of the first.

Probably the results of the votes concerning Congress and Senate will have a bigger influence on the next four years than the choice between Obama and his (at least in social matters) pale imitation. A solidly conservative House and Senate would tame a bad President whoever he may be, and if this does not happen I begin to struggle to see – at least in social matters – what great difference Romney would make.

I think it can be legitimately wished that the Republicans would lose as many Presidential elections as it is necessary to either die or  understand that in order to win they have to candidate a seriously conservative candidate. Whilst it is difficult to deny piss is probably less bad than shit, I can’t blame those who do not want to help piss to win.

Alas, the American Republicans pay the price of their puritanism: they didn’t like Gingrich, now they’ll have to live with Romney.

Mundabor

Official: Obama Is Pure Evil

Don’t believe me?

Read here.

Mundabor

Post (almost) Without Words

With kudos to the Sword of Peter

Retroactive Abortion for Obamacare?

Obamacare ante litteram

At this point I generally copy and paste some of the best statements. It gives the readers a clear idea of what is happening.

But this time, why should I? The photo says it all!

Enjoy!

Mundabor

Obamacare and European Catholicism

Senza Parole

 

 

The blogosphere has been ablaze for some time with the (by the grace of God, ferocious) controversy now opposing the Obama administration (who wants to force Catholic employers to select health insurances who pay for “services”, like the killing of babies, the Church refuses to abet; a poisonous fruit of the “Obamacare” legislation) and the American bishops (who point out that this goes against the most fundamental freedom of religion, something the Obama administration knows absolutely nothing about).This time, it seems the fight will be long and hard, and I can’t see how the nazi-liberal can win it in the long run.

Father Blake then wonders why in the US such controversies should be so ferocious, when in Europe no one ever moved a finger. Interesting question, to which I’d like to give some attempt at answers, none of them very pleasant.

1) In Europe, from around the end of the Second World War (actually, before that in countries like Germany and Italy) the idea of having the entire population automatically covered by health incurance began to take foot. Whilst the systems were different (one state behemot in the UK, and a vast number of small structures in Italy and Germany; Italy then switched to the behemoth) the idea was not really controversial as it was purely about health. Also, in those years abortion was universally banned. Health insurance meant “healing the sick”, period. 

But as always (and I have written about this very recently) when you leave something to the care of the Government, the latter will soon take care to ruin things. Besides these organisations becoming monsters of waste of public money, they were abused for every sort of overt and covert hijacking of health funds for things which had nothing to do with “healing the sick”; from paying swimming lessons  to contraception to, unavoidably, abortion; and as the system was from the start thought of as “compulsory” and “universal”, once abortion was approved it was considered only natural the “universality” of the system would apply to it, too.

Therefore, a system started as “healing of the sick” became “killing of the unborn”. This is what happens when you allow the government to do things for you.  

2) The question now arises: why the Church didn’t say anything? Because they were cowards, is the answer. Even in Italy, there was a decidedly toothless fight against abortion and divorce. In the wake of Vatican II, “change” was considered more or less “inevitable” ( always the pet excuse of those who don’t want to fight). The main responsible of what has happened was obviously the Vatican, with the then reigning Pope a world champion when it was about feeling sorry, whining around and complaining he was disobeyed but rather non-existent when it was about doing revolutionary things like demanding obedience, or putting up a fight. In the Seventies, fights were passe’ and Paul VI’s idea of opposition rarely went beyond a very subdued meowing about what the Church thoughts should, ideally, happen. A bit like the weak uncle sitting at table, expressing his opinion in a very low voice and firmly expecting – and secretly hoping –  that he won’t be taken seriously, otherwise the discussion will have to become heated.

3) The third element is, of course, the complicity of the local church hierarchy. When the local hierarchy declares war, a war punctually erupts, as we see now in the United States. Nothing of the sort happened in most European countries, with the local bishops happy to go with the flow. More popular, you know, and we don’t want to do anything as “people won’t change their mind anyway” (another brilliant excuse for the coward; I though the bishops were there to convert, not to decide people won’t be converted. My bad, I am sure).

Therefore, we are now in a situation where even euthanasia is not a taboo anymore; where disgraceful Archbishops openly refuse to disapprove of so-called “civil partnerships”; where not even Mass obligation is transmitted to the faithful; where the priest has become the pathetic figure of an obsolete old man who tries not to be a nuisance and knows a lot of jokes, but is not seen by anyone as a moral guide, generally because he isn’t.

This, I think, is why we are where we are. Europe is old and tired, and being old still has too many old sixty-eighters around. It has contracted out the very concept of freedom to a very nazi-“liberal” wannabe elite who is stealthily stripping the population of the most elementary freedoms with the entire apparatus of “hate crime” and “sensitivity” legislation. It has slowly forgotten not only the basis of freedom, but the basis of Christianity, with those most affected (the pot-smoking, sixty-eighter generation) now in power.

The smarter part of the US population sees all this, and reacts accordingly. I do not doubt the likes of Nichols can’t even understand why they are so angry.

If one doesn’t get Christianity, or freedom, I am not surprised.

Mundabor