A Proposal to Restore Peace to Europe: Kant or Kalinin

Kalinigrad, FKA as East Prussia with its ancient port city of Königsberg.

Kalinigrad, FKA as East Prussia with its ancient port city of Königsberg.

After two vicious aggressive attacks upon Russia by Germany in a single lifetime, it seemed reasonable at the time to leave Germany divided. The permanent cession of East Prussia and its port of Königsberg to the USSR was accepted by the US and Great Britain, mostly because it was already a fait accompli. And the thought of a resumed war against our former Uncle Joe Stalin was unthinkable.
The ethnic cleaning that the Soviets inflicted upon the Germans (killing or forcing out 200,000) the importation of the Polish minorities from Byelorus, the Ukraine, and “mother” Russia herself.  (from Wiki) was ignored by the West.

From a description of Soviet era Kalinigrad by Allesandro Torello from “SAIA Review of International Affairs Volume 25, Number 1, Winter-Spring 2005:
Tucked away on the Baltic coast is Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave bordered by Lithuania and Poland, both members of the European Union. Once an important Soviet naval base, it has become a passage port for numerous illegal activities. Drug smuggling and human trafficking are the main problems, alongside the smuggling of amber, cigarettes and alcohol. Statistics show the crime rate in the region is 20 percent higher than in mainland Russia, and organized crime controls the illegal activities in the city, fomenting corruption and undermining economic performance. The AIDS incidence in Kaliningrad is the highest in Europe, spread by widespread prostitution and drug use. Tuberculosis and diphtheria are similarly common. Pollution smothers Kaliningrad, spurred by the poor condition of what industry remains and abetted by the region’s investment in technological innovation. Currently one of the poorest areas in Europe—its people are 65 times poorer than the average E.U. citizen—the city is a receptacle of criminality, organized crime and drugs. (Emphasis mine).
IT IS TIME FOR EAST PRUSSIA TO BE RETURNED TO THE GERMAN NATION.

Kant_Kaliningrad

Immanuel Kant and the mainstream of European Civilization (for better or for worse [ Kant is the antithesis of Ayn Rand!]) OR—>>>Kalinin

Stalin-Lenin-Kalinin-1919

KANT OR KALININ: Stalin, Lenin, Kalinin or Moe Larry and Curly of Soviet Terror

Traditionally in European balance of power diplomacy, Germany was the keystone of any alliance constructed to oppose Russian aggression. With Germany divided, and with East Prussia occupied by the USSR, the implicit palliative was that the USA would replace Germany as the keystone to an alliance system to oppose Soviet or Russian aggression.
70 years later: Germany is unified. It is integrated into the EU. Yet the Russians are allowed still to keep their foot in the door to the heartland of Europe. Kalinigrad (Russian name for East Prussia) remains as a permanent threat on Germany’s left flank. And as such, forces the USA to replace Germany in her traditional role.
The ethnic cleansing done by the Soviets after the war is barely spoken of.
MY PLAN: Russia removes itself form East Prussia. USA removes ourselves from the former Warsaw Pact and USSR Republics.
Germany, France and Britain ought be able to guarantee the Eastern marches of Europe: the Baltics, Poland, Hungary. We do not guarantee those formerly Soviet or Soviet controlled states. But the Europeans do. If there is battle, it will be between Germany and her European allies, and Russia. The battlefield would be, once more in the Blood Lands that suffered so from WW1 through the fall of the USSR. (Geography, unfortunately for them is fixed.)
We remain in NATO but do not deploy into the former Soviet and Warsaw pact states.
In summary East Prussia for US withdrawal to the initial NATO states. Please call to set time for delivery of Nobel Prize.
MY SOLUTION: Russia leaves East Prussia. Königsberg returns to Germany.  America withdraws to previous NATO borders.

Read more: http://www.rferl.org/content/kaliningrad-russia-nato-west-strategic/27079655.html#ixzz3dWaoCYOd

Absolutely Boycott Absolut Vodka

Not so fast hombres.

Not so fast hombres.

WTF??? BOYCOTT ABSOLUT! BOYCOTT SWEDEN!
If only people would wake up and see the absolute (pun noted, unintended) parallel between Hispanics in America (USA) and Arabs in Israel much clarity would be gained.
Both believe they were there first. Both are wrong.
The Land of Israel was a barren backwater of the Ottoman Empire. Mark Twain wrote “Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies…. Renowned Jerusalem itself, the stateliest name in history, has lost all its ancient grandeur, and is become a pauper village; the riches of Solomon are no longer there to compel the admiration of visiting Oriental queens; the wonderful temple which was the pride and the glory of Israel, is gone, and the Ottoman crescent is lifted above the spot where, on that most memorable day in the annals of the world, they reared the Holy Cross. — The Innocents Abroad
Many writers, such as the Reverend Samuel Manning, mourned the atrophy of the coastal plain, the Sharon Plain, “the exquisite fertility and beauty of which made it to the Hebrew mind a symbol of prosperity.”But where were the inhabitants? This fertile plain, which might support an immense population, is almost a solitude…. Day by day we were to learn afresh the lesson now forced upon us, that the denunciations of ancient prophecy have been fulfilled to the very letter — “the land is left void and desolate and without inhabitants.” (The Reverend Samuel Manning, Those Holy Fields (London, 1874), pp. 14-17. W.M. Thomson reiterated the Reverend Manning’s observations: “How melancholy is this utter desolation! Not a house, not a trace of inhabitants, not even shepherds, seen everywhere else, appear to relieve the dull monotony…. Isaiah says that Sharon shall be wilderness, and the prediction has become a sad and impressive reality.” Thomson, The Land and the Book)
The parts of Mexico ceded to the USA after our victory over the corruptocrat regime in Mexico City was sparsely settled. Obsolete mercantilism forced all exports to flow from Tampico or Veracruz.  California was but a series of Missions, where Indians were forced to farm and become good Catholics.

The folkways of El Norte were always peculiar from the Mexican POV. These “northerners” that emigrated to Tejas and Nueveo Mexico were the rugged individualists of Mexico. The Iberian mindset in the Americas was always sited on URBAN life. The system of peonage allowed whiter more European Mexicans the luxury of absentee landlord over farming and mining. The peasants were never interested in ambition for self-improvement. They were NOT of the Bourgeoise mindset.
The very few that sought their own terms went north. The region was populated by the toughest of Indians. The geography was unfit for anything but ranching.
Americans spread west into what was Mexico at the invitation of the Federal District. More settlers, especially ambitious “Yankees” would increase the tax-revenues.
The economy grew and BOTH Americans and Mexicans of El Norte rebelled against their treatment by Mexico City. There were Mexicans and Americans IN the Alamo.
In any case as the USA built dams railroads etc, the region became wealthy. This NEW economy began sucking in Mexicans from the interior; i.e. not El Norte. When Air Conditioning was invented the small cities of the Southwest BOOMED. This increased the need for labor and that attracted  more Mexicans.

This is exactly to the T the story of Arabs in Israel. The European Jews (as opposed to the Ottoman Jews who were as backward as anyone in the region) came and drained swamps, irrigated land and turned Twain’s vacant dusty forlorn land green. This NEW economy sucked in Arabs from Syria as agricultural hands.
IN BOTH CASES the Hispanics and Arabs indeed CROSSED THE BORDER; AND THE BORDER DID NOT CROSS THEM!
Thus SWEDEN and all the enemies of Israel are also anti-Americans.

Vultures vs Hyenas: Either Way Blood Flows

There is a deep and hidden battle taking place in America. Neither side is OURs. We do not have a dog in this fight.

Obama did not want to be a “FOREIGN POLICY” War Fighting President. He wanted to defund the military, reduce America’s strategic footprint. And thus distance us from the global chaos.  This is not a terrible idea.  There is room to discuss how much of the world we will write off as not our business.  But for sure the entire world’s status quo can no longer be a goal of US policies.  Obama also sought to fundamentally transform America.  He has done so.  The American Nation is gone.  There is a Leviathan Government acting sitting atop a multicultural state where everyone will belong to a minority.  This anti-nationalism elevates the Federal Government to arbiter over a non-people with a non-language.  And he seeks a World Government that would mirror this multi-ethnic non-national state.

He is opposed by the West Inc: the Military-Industrial-Banking Complex. This side also includes those patriots that revel in American superpower status. Theirs is a sports-like quality of rooting for the HOME TEAM. The USA has won the World Series every year since 1944: like the Yankees. Much of this sentiment is anachronistic, for rooting for the Home Team requires a Home. And the de-Anglo-Saxoning and the “de-privileging” of English-speaking bourgeoise i.e. the true Middle Class, has made the USA like the Yankees or Dodgers. IOW there are no boys from the NY City on the Yanks, nor Californian boys on the Dodgers.  Major League Baseball Inc. is mostly played by Hispanics, and Japanese, and the rare WASP found on the diamond is unlikely to be from the city in which he plays.

The Military-Industrial-Banking gang encourages the fans,sponsors them  just like Bud or Coors.  They too are Globalist! The NATO/EU connection, is the embryonic form of their Global Power.

The USA has put itself in the role of keeper of the Status Quo forever. The Great Post-WW2 Peace was a benefit of American dominance. But that dominance MUST recede. In the wake of WW2 Europe, Japan and the USSR were beaten down, bled out.

America’s share of the Gross Global Product was therefore huge. It could not be maintained.  Though our wealth was maintainable the relative wealth of the US viz. the rest of the world could never again be what it was in the wake of the War.   The recovery of Europe, Japan and Russia and the vast modernization of Korea AND China in the face of US Free Trade have all come at the cost of USA market share.

The West Inc. is the alliance of USA EU NATO Japan, S. Korea, China and their banks etc. It is their aim to maintain their global share of wealth. Russia, China and the rest of BRICs want to increase their share of the world’s wealth.

There are two competing New World Orders: they are The West Inc. which is cloaked as rah rah patriotism on the one hand and the Socialist Utopians of the UN academentia, the left, the greens, LBGT-activists Agenda 21 etc. on the other hand.

Their Civil War is not ours. The America of our youth, face it: a White majority with 10-15% Blacks and where virtually everyone spoke English, and all, whether Catholic or Jewish had internalized the Protestant ethic, is no longer.  It is no more!  Their (not “our”) Civil War is over the fate of the vast power and wealth built up over two centuries in America The Beautiful and the Blessed.  Both sides seek to lend this power and wealth to their cause. But this civil war is NEVER admitted by either side because to alert us to it is to awaken us to what they have done. Our AMERICAN NATION was deliberately destroyed through immigration policies, the mysterious Muslim invasion, (who recalls being asked if they thought that America needed Muslims?), the war on American culture etc etc. All were aimed precisely to bring the death of our nation and its replacement by a totalitarian state.

The Civil War is made manifest in the strange inconsistencies of current events. The Libyan fiasco has levels within levels of sparring between the sides. Why the rush by Hillary Clinton to bring down Qadaffi who was being cooperative? Why was the US Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi working out of a CIA annex? WHAT WAS HE DOING THERE? Running guns from Libya to anti-Assad forces in Syria? When Obama warned Assad against chemical weapons, remarkably within weeks Sarin was used by somebody. McCaine and his boyfriend Grahamnesty the Senate’s chairmen of the Military-Industrial-Banking Complex committee (there is no such thing, just sayin’) immediately wanted the USA to intervene. The “War-As -Sport” Fans cheered. USA USA USA brought to you by Bud and Chevrolet.

Obama and his New World Order wanted Stevens stopped. Thus he was assassinated. At that point the West Inc side backed away quickly so as to distance themselves from any publicity about being complicit with feeding the flames of the Syrian war.  This civil war has pitted the Clintons against the Obamas.

Now the newest kid on the block with lots of US weapons is ISIS. Team Obama of the UN-Climate Charade-Agenda 21 side of the civil wars between the two competing Globalist visions knows who is ultimately running this.  Obama knows that ISIS is but the cats’ paw of the West Inc. Thus his “JV” comment was so relished by the Warcasters.  The public televised beheadings were done by fanatics, true; but by fanatics empowered by West Inc. The same Senators of the M-I-B Complex Committee and the same War-as Sportcasters rah rah Headbanger rah rah Leprechaun brought to you by Coors and Ford Motors, are screaming for more robust attacks on ISIS.

A POX ON BOTH SIDES.
The American nation is no more. RIP.
WE DON’T GET USED AGAIN!

An Honest “Liberal” Admits The Anti-Christ Nature of the Left

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/roger-cohen-what-will-israel-become.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region
Is Amos Oz the “conscience of a liberal and anti-Messianic Israel”? I do not know who Amos Oz is, nor have I read any of his works. His name is familiar, that is all. But those details are unimportant because Roger Cohen uses it merely to namedrop and to emboss a literary watermark upon his Op Ed.
Despite my admitted ignorance of Amos Oz, Roger Cohen has filled in all relevant blanks by his naming the former as the “conscience of a liberal and anti-Messianic Israel”. What Cohen has done is establish the equality of “liberalism” in regard to Israeli policies and “anti-Messianism”. Finally an honest liberal!

Utopian Statists have ripped off the word “liberal” and all its derivations. They succeeded to the point where one must add the caveat “Classical” to “Liberalism” to place John Locke in his proper category.

So, WHY does “Liberalism” (State Utopianism) equal Anti-Messianism?

Modern “Liberalism” is the drive to overthrow culture and nationality by the apparatus of State. Its stated aims are the creation of some mythic status of Social Justice and Equality of Outcome. Its unstated means is dictatorship by the “enlightened”, by those who have been given the “brilliance” to see through or to Deconstruct the entire edifice of organic societal norms as being arbitrary yet simultaneously conspiratorial in their tendency “to privilege” (as a verb) those “on top”.
Its enemy is Modernity. It does not name itself “anti-Modern” partially because the very act of “labeling” is dismissed as Bourgeois. But more insidiously it is the very exactitude and precision of vocabulary that it opposes.
John Locke espoused the view that the alternative to despotic authority is not necessarily anarchy. Unlike Hobbes, Locke saw that humans have a natural propensity to self-organization. That point of view, coupled with the explosion of literacy enabled the prescient to envisage a self-governing republican nation.
This Modern worldview is first encountered in the Anglophone world. Great Britain and its settler colonies seeded the world with pockets of Middle Class Protestants-in-ethics (if not theology) creating bourgeois societies. These societies created States in order to establish stability, and protect the individuals from criminals and foreign invaders. The Modern worldview perceives the State as a secondary creation, created by the Nation. And by “Nation” the Moderns mean the largest organizational level. The Nation is the totality of the all the individuals who share a large degree of cultural norms, including language, religion, and worldview including a sense of common history and literature. For instance there is without debate a German nation, a French nation, a Japanese nation etc. But when it comes to the American nation there one finds much debate. Is there an American nation? Those who say “Yes” are called “conservatives” at best, “racists” at worst. They are constantly confronted with Michael Stiviks fresh from the University. “Not so” they hear. And then the explanation of the many myths is begun: the “myth” of American exceptionalism, the “myth” that Liberty is truly the goal of the political system, the “myth” of history as told by “white males” etc and in such manner America is “deconstructed” into being the result of ravenous white men who having ravaged the native population, imported African slaves to build an imperialist exploitive machine to rape the earth and pillage the brown races of the world.
This, the toxic brew concocted in the Academy and exported to all the nations that made up that entity formerly known as “Christendom”, is Post-Modernism.

The West emerged onto the world stage as The West in its Christian faith. The deconstruction of the Rise of The West “demythologizes” the role of Faith in the motives of the Conquistadors. It mocks the Pilgrims’ motivating impulse, i.e. to build a New Israel upon actual Biblical concepts. It presumes the deliberate genocide of the Indians, although disease preceded the Mayflower and the Pilgrims decamped into a post-apocalyptic landscape they mistook for simple woodland pastoralism.
American History is never taught as a whole. The Big Picture of the unbelievably meteoric rise of America from a dozen isolated Atlantic colonies of Great Britain to Superpower in the historic blink of an eye is never shown.
America having grown to Superpower status has begun tippling from the Kryptonite Koolaid. It can do so and run on momentum for a relatively long time: far longer than the State of Israel will be able to run.
The State of Israel unfortunately has allowed itself to be seduced by the MTV University. The DECONSTRUCTION Of The State of Israel is ongoing.
If the Deconstruction of Christianity has destroyed Christendom, what can be expected in the Deconstruction of the Judaism to Israel? Judaism itself is under relentless attack from within. The entire Tanakh (the “Old” Testament) is being deconstructed. Though Zionism claimed to be a secular movement of progressive Jews, nevertheless it retains the Jewish component. To what can the Jewish component refer if the Tanakh is denied relevancy?
Amos Oz and Roger Cohen have nailed the essence of Judaism: and it is Messiah. Judaism without Messianic expectations is as dead as Christianity without the Resurrection. And handily we now have it on authority of the NY Times that Liberalism is based upon the demythologizing of the central tenets of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Liberalism is indeed the Anti-Christ.

NY Times Runs Pre-Election Day Ad For Obamacare!!! Extra Read All About It!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-middle-span-region&region=c-column-middle-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-middle-span-region – /
The NY Times is out shilling for the Democrat party this weekend before Election Day.  Smug elitists will read the bullet points and pretend to know the data.

FOR INSTANCE this, the first bullet point: “HAS THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED PEOPLE BEEN REDUCED?”

The NY Snides will pompously rebut Conservative critics of Obamacare by glibly asserting, “The number of Americans Without Health Insurance is Down by About 25 Percent”.

I doubt more than 25% of NYT readers will read beyond the first paragraph. And I bet they, the Times, know that. So the vast majority of the intilektchuals will not have read the third paragraph. “Of that total, it appears that more than half of people who are newly insured signed up for Medicaid…”
AND even IF the percentage of uninsured is decreased by 6-8% the question ought be AT WHAT COST?
The Second Bullet Point to listen for is “HAS INSURANCE UNDER THE LAW BEEN AFFORDABLE?”

The NYT says, “When President Obama signed the measure in 2010, he pledged that it would protect Americans from ruinously high medical bills by guaranteeing them access to comprehensive — and affordable — coverage.” WAIT A MINUTE Mr. New York Snide; there is a BAIT AND SWITCH in the very sentence! NOTICE THE DELIBERATE CONFLATION of “Medical Bills” and “affordable coverage”.

You might (but I know no one who has) pay less of a premium BUT you will PAY MORE for Co-pay, and Prescriptions.

IN addition the Slimes are comparing apples and lemons. Most Obamacare Plans do NOT cover elite hospitals and medical centers: not Sloan-Kettering for instance in NYC. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. Those who promise it are scamming you!
On this Second Bullet Point The Times conveniently provides a summary “WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW”. (Yes, what you need to now to confound conservative critics of Obamacare is my guess.

Here is “what you need to know”: *Of the 7.3 million people who signed up for private insurance through online exchanges during the first enrollment period, 85 percent qualified for federal subsidies that decreased the cost of their premiums.

Though many people have found policies with affordable premiums, high deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs have discouraged some people from using their insurance.

Early rate filings by insurers in 21 states suggest that rates will vary widely, but the median premium increases for 2015 for silver plans will be around 4 percent and there will be more insurers in the market. But consumers will need to shop around to keep their costs down.

Insurers are expected to continue trying to control costs by restricting consumers from using doctors out of their network. *

These points are meant to be positive comments about 0’care. Silver Plans will herd their plebeian buyers into smaller and smaller pools of doctors and make seeing a specialist very difficult. If you like your doctor maybe you will see him in the supermarket and you can say Howdy, but you will not see him in his office.

The Intilektchual posers will read the “WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW” to pretend to be knowledgeable and will not read the body of the article. In this slimy way the NY Snide editors can signal the talking points, but protect their own shrinking credibility.

3rd Bullet: “Did the Affordable Care Act improve health outcomes?” Notice in lighter gray beneath the question a subtitle “To Gauge Impact on Nation’s Health, More Time Will Be Needed”. Oh. In other words it is unknown. Their first paragraph “Of all the pledges made for the Affordable Care Act — that it would reduce the number of uninsured or make insurance more affordable, for instance — perhaps the loftiest and hardest to demonstrate was that it would make the nation healthier” is plagued by the fundamental flaw of leftist philosophy. That flaw is considering “the nation” to have the same qualities as individuals. If we were to take the nation’s temperature, so to speak, with an old-fashioned thermometer would we place it in DC, or Newark, or Gary, IN? The “nation” is an abstraction; it is a term that is handy for considering a collective. But it is only INDIVIDUALS that might be healthier or not!

The Times gives us again “WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW” (again with my “in order to appear to be knowledgeable” refrain.

*Most experts say there is not enough data yet on the entire population to determine whether the law is improving the nation’s health.

The best early data is on young people, and it suggests that the law is benefiting that group by allowing them to stay on their parents’ insurance. The share of 19- to 25-year-olds without health insurance declined to 21 percent in the first quarter of this year, from 34 percent in 2010, a reduction of about four million people.

Young college graduates were far more likely to report excellent health, to have a primary care doctor and to go to the doctor regularly than before the law.

Indicators for how well the law is working for older people are few, but one – screenings for colon cancer – shows marked growth, as screening rates for people with private insurance rose to 56 percent in 2012, from 48 percent in 2010.*

Studies are cited in the body of the article (probably unread by 75%) and at least the one I looked at does NOT…NOT support the claim “young college graduates were far more likely to report excellent health, to have a primary care doctor and to go to the doctor regularly than before the law.” Below is the link to the study on which this claim is made.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20148 “Impacts of the Affordable Care Act Dependent Coverage Provision on Health-Related Outcomes of Young Adults

Silvia Barbaresco, Charles J. Courtemanche, Yanling Qi

NBER Working Paper No. 20148

Issued in May 2014

NBER Program(s): HC HE

The first major insurance expansion of the Affordable Care Act – a provision requiring insurers to allow dependents to remain on parents’ health insurance until turning 26 – took effect in September 2010. We estimate this mandate’s impacts on numerous health-related outcomes using a difference-in-differences approach with 23-25 year olds as the treatment group and 27-29 year olds as the control group. For the full sample, the dependent coverage provision increased the probabilities of having insurance, a primary care doctor, and excellent self-assessed health, while decreasing unmet medical needs because of cost. However, we find no evidence of improvements in preventive care utilization or health behaviors. Subsample analyses reveal particularly striking gains for college graduates, including reduced obesity. Finally, we show that the mandate’s impacts on 19-22 year olds were generally weaker than those on 23-25 year olds, although we observe a reduction in pregnancies for unmarried 19-22 year old women.”

Nowhere in this paper cited by the Times is there justification for their “young college graduates were far more likely to report excellent health…. than before the law.”
Bullet 4

Will the online exchanges work better this year than last? “WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW” (in order to parrot the party line):

Federal and state officials say that the online health care marketplaces that performed so badly last fall have been upgraded to ensure smoother service when they reopen Nov. 15.

But both new and old customers are expected to flood onto the exchanges, testing their capacities, and the “back end” of the federal system, where insurers receive applications and bill the government for subsidy payments, is not completed.

Though many of the 14 state-run exchanges are fine, several remain question marks, including those in Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Vermont.

NOT MUCH HERE EXCEPT THE “COINCIDENCE” that the test of functionality occurs AFTER Election Day!

It is here we should recall how it was that the Canadian company CGI got the NO-BID contract to create the 0’Website.  Michelle Obama and the Failed Website To summarize, the company with a terrible record on similar projects in Canada received a NO-BID contract. It is happenstance that Michelle Obama’s classmate and fellow member of Black Princeton Alumni, Toni Townes-Whitley is Executive Vice President of CGI-Federal.

Bullet 5: Has the health care industry been helped or hurt by the law? “WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW” to rebut conservatives:

Wall Street analysts and health care experts say the law helped the industry financially by providing new customers to insurers and new paying patients to hospitals.

The most direct beneficiary of the law is the insurance industry, which is now experiencing growth in the demand for private insurance.

The number of insurers participating in the online health exchanges is projected to grow in 2015, an indication of the anticipated profitability of the marketplace.

So, who cares how well “the industry” is doing? Only Crony Corporatists benefit. Not patients, not doctors. Only bureaucrats and corporate tools win.

The NY Slimes first sentence in this bullet ‘From the beginning, opponents of the Affordable Care Act have warned that it represented a “government takeover”…’ WHY THE QUOTES? Air quotes are pathognomonic for the presence of an underlying Statist, Collectivist, Fellow Traveler or Trendy Tool. If the “Affordable Care Act” were not a government takeover of 20% of the US economy what would an actual takeover look like?

And as to the Crony Corporatists: Alinsky boasted “I have on occasion remarked that I felt confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday. — P.150 Rules For Radicals. From the Times article: For the insurers, the health care exchanges are now “really the only game in town in terms of growth” for private insurance, said John F. Holahan, a policy expert from the Urban Institute.
IS THIS THE PLAN: lure in the Crony Corporatists then destrpy them? Not necessarily a bad thing. But it will be used as an example that “Capitalism failed… and failed fairly… spectacularly” per Hillary Clinton.

Bullet the 6th is:
“HOW HAS THE EXPANSION OF MEDICAID FAIRED?” with the subtitle “Some States Balked at What They Believed Would Be Hidden Costs”. The NY Times presumes to be smarter than entire states!!!

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW (to sound like you’ve been watching MSLSD):

The Affordable Care Act allows states to expand Medicaid to people not previously eligible, including some people above the poverty level – but the United States Supreme Court in 2012 ruled that expansion was optional for states.

As a result, only 27 states and the District of Columbia have expanded, while Republican opposition in other states has blocked expansion.

In states without expanded Medicaid, a coverage gap exists for people who earn too much to receive Medicaid, but too little to receive federal subsidies to reduce insurance premiums. About half of the people who fall in that gap nationally live in Texas, Florida or Georgia.

Under pressure from hospitals that stand to gain federal funds from Medicaid expansion, Republican governors in several states are now moving toward expansion, some through so-called private option plans.

This one begins “Architects of the Affordable Care Act saw the expansion of Medicaid, the government health care program for low-income people, as a crucial step toward President Obama’s goal of reducing the number of uninsured. And in states that have expanded eligibility — to include people with incomes up to 138 percent of the poverty level (up to $16,105 for an individual) — Medicaid appears to be achieving that goal.” BUT as pointed out above try to find doctors that take Medicaid!!! Since most uninsured poor people have no assets like houses to place liens upon their hospital bills are probably laughed at as they are tossed in the trash. So this law merely pays hospitals a token of their admission and care.  It does not provide care to any one but hospital financial officers. It is all but wealth redistribution. In this weekend before Election Day the NY Times donates free advertising to the Democrat Party.

Not all states have expanded Medicaid, because the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the expansion was optional. So governments in 23 states, most of them Republican-controlled (BOO HISS), have blocked expansion, asserting that the cost could eventually become a state responsibility.”

The Times implies the Republican Governors are stupid. Don’t they know “that will not be the case: Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government pays all costs for newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries through 2016, and after that the federal share never goes below 90 percent. Under traditional Medicaid, states pay a higher share — 26 percent to 50 percent.”

IS IT NOT POSSIBLE OR EVEN LIKELY THAT AFTER 2016 the far larger pool of Medicaid-insured would generate costs such that 10% would cost more than the 26-50% reimbursement states currently get?

And further, like Alinsky’s “I have on occasion remarked that I felt confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday”, the Crony Governors and their states will be exactly in the same position.

The final bullet, #7 is “HAS THE LAW CONTRIBUTED TO A SLOWDOWN IN HEALTH CARE SPENDING?” with the somewhat hemming and hawing subtitle ” Trajectory of Costs Levels Off, but There Are Many Reasons”.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW (to sound glib and lib).

Health care spending had begun slowing even before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law.

The reasons included recession, higher-deductible policies that discourage people from seeking health care services, and a decline in the development of new, costly prescription drugs.

But reductions in wasteful or unneeded care may also be factors in the slowdown, and experts say the Affordable Care Act may help reinforce those changes.

In the short term, the law could actually drive up health care spending by bringing more insured people into the system.

The kick off to this last essay is “For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy...” This is an important factoid that must NOT be taken at its face value. Again, it is comparing apples and oranges. In the 1950’s there were no Cat Scans, MRI’s, Interventional Radiology, drugs to treat all the things we now take for granted. People live longer, because of pharmacologic and technologic interventions in Atherosclerosis, Hypertension, Congestive Heart failure, Diabetes, Asthma COPD, Kidney Failure just to name a few of the major killers of the past. They are all now managed longer and allow for a longer life with good quality.

What is the percent increase in the cost of Television watching. Remember when it FREE! As long as you had a decent and well-placed antenna it was free. Oh but there were only seven channels and nothing between 2AM and 6AM! Now we have cable or dish or telephone line input with 1000 channels of perfect picture! But it is not free. Why is there no hubbub over the television-viewing costs rising much faster than the rest of the economy?

So the very first premise is mistaken. The rest is therefore moot. To end this NY Times pre-election day review of Obamacare and ad for the Democrat Party: ““The experiment is on, and everyone knows they’re a lab rat,” said Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin, the president of the right-leaning American Action Forum and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “Now we’ll see if it sticks.” To the Times, “right-leaning” might mean anything! I suspect that this “right-leaning” think tanker is a Free-Trading Corporatist of the Crony Clan.

To the ELITES we are indeed lab rats! We will remind them that rats have teeth!

Hagel on Hegel or Visa Versa?

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/29/Hagel-I-think-we-are-seeing-a-new-world-order
http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=91074&siteSection=breitbartprivate&videoId=28068038

World Orders do not just shift like weather patterns or climate.  They are fundamentally affected by the rising and falling of relative power between the various regions of the world.

Europe and its Overseas Subsidiaries have ruled the planet for only ~500 + years. Its first truly global impetus was seen in the expansion of the Iberian states.  Portuguese ships, which were either traders, pirates or naval depending on the circumstances pushed around Africa and up into the Indian Ocean.  The Spanish stumbled into and conquered the Americas on their way to the Orient from the west.

For half a millennium the West ruled the Rest.  That is but a blink in historic time and a mere glitch in deep history.  The Indian Ocean had a highly evolved trading system mostly run by Arab and Malay sailors.  The Portuguese only needed to decapitate the system and place themselves at the apex.  This is also exactly what the Spanish did in Central and South America: decapitate and replace the native imperium with their own.

Much of the Iberian empires fell into the hands of the British and their descendant peoples and the French.  The British and French then spent the 18 and 19th centuries tearing at each other’s shares of the Iberians’ bequest.

The Great Civil Wars of Europe in the first half of the 20th Century exhausted the French and British and prevented the Germans from grabbing “their” fair share of the Rest.   The two great para-European nations were left glaring at each other across a weakened and dimming Europe. Russia and America formerly peripheral to “The Continent” replaced Europe throughout the World.
But a system can sustain only so much change before its basic qualities begin to decay. Europe’s 20th Century self-inflicted exsanguination and its sudden loss of confidence in its own Historic Inevitability together allowed the sudden collapse of its civilizational immunity. The Muslim menace had always loomed from below Europe, always awaiting its own “Inevitability”. The moral and physical weakness of Europe attracted the Muslim hordes. America and Russia remained indifferent to the European demographic decline so long as they prevented the other from absorbing the corpse into its rival’s hegemony.
So much death breeds disease and more death. Islam has re-emerged to reclaim the Indian Ocean littoral, and to expand far beyond the limits set at Tours and Vienna into the heart of the Continent.
The loss of Pride in the West has become mental illness.   The apparent masochistic desire to submit before The Rest has all of Greater Europe including North America clumsily committing suicide as if that would satisfy their “debt” for bringing on the Modern Age.
Even in the larger wave oscillations of history the West is reaching a nadir. Until the Persian Wars, Europe was a mere peninsula of Eurasia. Two and half millennia have elapsed since the Athenians and Spartans threw back the Persians. That expulsion only ended when Alexander, the heir of Greece conquered the Persian emperor. Though 2,500 years is a long run, it seems it too is but a passing wave. Persia rises again as “Graecia” ages ungracefully. And China restores her Pride or more accurately her sense of being the great and Middle Kingdom of the planet. China is poised to do that which it had never done historically until now.
Only briefly did China ever cast its eyes out over the world with anything but disdain. Never did China as a unitary state set about expansion. Always “barbarians” from the north or west were attracted by its wealth when it became powerful. And always the barbarians succeeded in replacing the previous stabilizing dynasty with a period of chaos.
Unless Islam clashes with China I believe we are witnessing the collapse of what was once The Modern World.  I.e. unless the followers of Mo’ fight the heirs of Mao.

Though there appear to be waves and cycles in history, as in the rise and fall of various powers and regions, they are NOT forces beyond human intervention. Much of the philosophic poison the West is imbibing is based upon this fallacy. It is partially the faith in Marxism that allows for the new fatalism in Western thinking about itself. The Post-Moderns, Marxists have “deconstructed” Western Civilization from an achievement of the highest order, to being considered a predatory net-evil. The pride of being the most ashamed of their own civilization is something New Under the Sun. Just as the Modern Age with its Middle Class was the only New Thing Under The Sun; so too is the spectacle of civilizational suicide.

Ten Years Wasted: Individual vs. Corporate Rights

Today, in “SundayReview” in the NY Times appears an article by Eric L. Lewis. He describes himself “As a corporate litigator who has also spent more than a decade defending Guantánamo detainees, I have been trying to figure out why corporations are worthy of court protection and Muslims held in indefinite detention without trial by the United States at a naval base in Cuba are not.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/opinion/sunday/who-are-we-the-people.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar,%7B”1″%3A”RI%3A11″%7D
An entire decade? He spent an entire decade pondering this? And after all those hours of contemplation this is the distilled wisdom he offers?

Is this what legal scholarship produces in the 21st Century? This is mental masturbation! Students of Law cannot differentiate between POW’s on the one hand and Corporations or Unions on the other in regard to personhood and their inherent rights.   Talk about straining at gnats and swallowing camels!
It may be possible to differentiate Hobby Lobby from that of Citizens United.  Does incorporation allow exemptions from legal obligations based upon the religious beliefs of the majority of stockholders? Maybe. Maybe not.

Does Freedom of Speech apply to corporate entities? Obviously it does. Clearly a publishing corporation would be immune from government restrictions as to what projects it elects to undertake, or we would lack any free press.  So would the Court have to define the amount of business activity a corporation invests in printing and publishing? Would freedom of speech be recognized only for “publishing corporations” with, say greater than 50% of its activity being devoted to printing and publishing?  Or 70%, or 80%?  Clearly corporations retain Free Speech.  Why?

The difference between Citizens United and Hobby Lobby is the difference between specific corporate privileges that would exist in the State of Nature and those that would not. The first and obvious point is that corporations do not exist in the State of Nature. Given that an accepted legitimate authority confers corporate status, the absence of such authority removes any fictional legal status that a group of individuals enjoys.
Thus, in the State of Nature there are only individuals and their voluntary associations, period. Only when society creates concrete government is there delegated authority to define and enforce contract and criminal law and undertake various projects that are presumed to benefit the members of society. Society can create government that lacks the authority to charter corporations, or has the authority to forbid it. In that case the Natural Right of Freedom of Association remains unhampered. Individuals may associate for any reasons and ends, including self-interest.

Here is the difference between Citizens United and Hobby Lobby. In societies whose legitimate governments do not allow the legal fiction of corporate selfhood the natural right of association remains unhindered. Individuals of any association by so joining do not lose any of their inherent rights. Speech is still a natural right. However the tax breaks and other benefits of incorporation are not natural rights that accrue to voluntary associations. In a society lacking legal incorporation (i.e. in the State of Nature) individuals who refuse to pay taxes (that have been legitimately placed upon all citizens) by virtue of their membership in a certain voluntary association are no more or less than tax-evaders.
How the Muslim prisoners in Gitmo figure into questions of individual liberty in the State of Nature vs. that under legitimate government is beyond me. The author is straining at gnats and swallowing camels. (Hmmm, if a pun fits wear it!!!)