Take the amount of their yearly fraud, multiply by at least 5 years or the time they got away with it – whichever is greater. Take that amount from the budget of that agency that was lax about following the rules. If the agency has to reduce services, or even let some employees go, well, that’s just the price that their facilitation of crimes costs.
THEY choose to do allow the crime. THEY should suffer the consequences.
Of course, any fines go straight to debt reduction, not to the agency.
The FOIA records produced by SSA as a result of IRLI’s lawsuit have shown that, from 2012 to 2016, there were 39 million instances where names and Social Security numbers on W-2 tax forms did not match the corresponding Social Security records. Additionally, over $409 billion was added to the Earnings Suspense File (ESF), which holds uncredited wages that can’t be correctly matched to SSA’s database. From 1937 to 2005, $519 billion was reported to be sitting in the ESF. In tax year 2016, that number rose to over $1.5 trillion.
Let me be clear – the agencies that facilitated this FRAUD on the American public should NOT be able to profit from their CRIMES. That money should NOT be given to the agency, but to reducing the debt we owe.
I’ve written about asset forfeiture before. In my home state, it’s a major problem in some counties.
This is a practice that needs to be eliminated, or at least heavily restricted to property belonging to CONVICTED felons. We could do a lot to reduce prosecutorial abuses by stopping them from profiting from the practice.
A not-mentioned, but likely tactic that the Left will try to use against Trump is to seize his assets, under the pretense that they were part of a crime. Note that the state NEVER HAS TO PROVE THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. All that is needed is an indictment.
Who would benefit from that asset forfeiture? NY state and city would.
I urge everyone to go to the link below – it will astound and infuriate you to realize the abuse of this law to enrich the law enforcement arm of the state.
Now, it’s clear that Liz Warren was not correct about her heritage. That’s not uncommon – Ancestry and 23 & Me have up-ended a lot of ancestry assumptions.
Mine included. I had always been told of my ancestor, Indian Billy Ice, a native of the WV/OH/PA region, who had been taken by the Indians after his mother and infant sister were killed by raiders, along with his brother’s fiancee.
He and his sister (not clear whether there were two of them, or only one sister) lived with the Indians, until released under the treaty that ended the Pontiac War. His sister had been traded (some say sold) to another tribe, not involved in the war, and never returned to live with her family. She made a brief visit many years later, but declined to stay when invited.
Billy was release with his live-in woman, and their six kids (yes, he’d been quite busy during his captivity). She returned shortly after to her family, and Billy married another settler – that was my ancestor.
So, despite there being some Native American (Indian) Ice relatives, after a lot of research on Ancestry.com, it was clear that we were not, despite family stories, part of that branch of the family.
So, I get it, I really do – we grew up thinking we were racially mixed. I never traded on that supposed background – I just marked White on the boxes.
And, this turned out to be quite correct – according to the DNA analysis on 23&Me, I’m over 98% Northern European, mostly English, Irish, and Scottish. The rest Dutch and German.
Just like Liz Warren. I’m just a smidge Iberian Peninsula – less than 2 %.
So, what does it all mean?
To have believed one story for a long time is not unusual. To have used such a slight connection to parley it into a prestigious faculty position is, however. An ethical person would offer to resign, after the connection is proved to be false.
Which, she did not. Hence, the nickname, Lyin’ Liz.
Now, she is running – hard – for president. Her supporters believe that she has a good chance of making it in 2020 – which must fry Hillary’s ass!
Fauxcahantas, as Rush Limbaugh has dubbed her, is the new favorite media darling. I doubt she’ll make the finals, but, if she does – she’s in trouble! Trump will wipe the floor with her. In contrast to most of their competitors, Trump acts like a guy who thinks, You want to play with the guys? Prepare to be treated like one!
This drives feminist nuts. They’re used to being treated deferentially, and given a pass on any hard questioning. To have to face a guy who is used to dealing with union leaders, and doesn’t take crap from anyone, is a Feminist’s Worst Nightmare.
So I’m mostly back from my self-imposed ascetic period. I needed some time to clear my head, and politics certainly has a way of muddying the religious waters. But I feel that I can safely return to my long-winded screeds and overly-involved fisks. And my friends, we have a whopper today. In fact, this is not just a fisk, it is a comparison of two viewpoints, one interesting and one a well-spun lie. Before we get into it, I have this observation for you:
One of the more penetrating questions to a liberal is “when is my duty satisfied?” It lacks the grounding necessary to recognize a success condition. It embraces its own form of original sin, but lacks the redemption method.
Think carefully on this. Leftists generally like to, for example, push taxes higher. What rate of taxation is enough, after which they must better allocate the funds instead of asking for more? With respect to racial grievances, how many affirmative action programs, how much money, how much tireless media spin is necessary before we can say that we have satisfied the duty they ask of us? What level of involvement in Social Justice programs is enough that, when satisfied, the person can proudly state that he is not racist/sexist/whatever?
If you cheat and look in the back of the book, so to speak, you will find that the answer is nothing. Nothing will satisfy them. Nothing is ever enough. Unlike Christianity, the original sin of Liberalism can never be expunged. There is no redemption, racist.
The New York Times bestselling author of White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism sat down with Teaching Tolerance to discuss why working against one’s own fragility is a necessary part of white anti-racist work—and why good intentions don’t matter.
And later in the article she expands on this:
I think intentions are irrelevant. It’s nice to know you had good intentions, but the impact of what you did was harmful. And we need to let go of our intentions and attend to the impact, to focus on that.
Intentions don’t matter. That’s a good place to start, and by itself explains a great deal about Progressive political thought. In a criminal case, intentions do matter. If you intend to kill someone, that is murder, and it is worse than killing someone by accident, which may be manslaughter or negligent homicide, or some other thing. Or, if the other person intended to harm you, your killing him in turn may be justified. Intentions surely do matter. What happens in the physical world also matters, of course, but to say good intentions don’t matter is already a lie.
Well, when I coined [white fragility], the fragility part was meant to capture how little it takes to upset white people racially. For a lot of white people, the mere suggestion that being white has meaning will cause great umbrage. Certainly generalizing about white people will. Right now, me saying “white people,” as if our race had meaning, and as if I could know anything about somebody just because they’re white, will cause a lot of white people to erupt in defensiveness. And I think of it as a kind of weaponized defensiveness. Weaponized tears. Weaponized hurt feelings. And in that way, I think white fragility actually functions as a kind of white racial bullying.
Fascinatingly enough, the author tells us that white fragility is actually a form of Weaponized Empathy, in so many words. It’s interesting to note this because this is a very clear form of projection. I’ve delved a lot into Weaponized Empathy as a concept here at The Declination. I am certainly one of the originators of the term. And so it is quite fascinating to see the author of this book, and the responses in this article, using a very similar phrasing. If a white person is defensive he is, by her own words, a kind of racial bully. The tears are offensive weapons. The hurt feelings are offensive weapons. But let’s explore a little more here.
We white people make it so difficult for people of color to talk to us about our inevitable—but often unaware—racist patterns and assumptions that, most of the time, they don’t. People of color working and living in primarily white environments take home way more daily indignities and slights and microaggressions than they bother talking to us about because their experience consistently is that it’s not going to go well. In fact, they’re going to risk more punishment, not less. They’re going to now have to take care of the white person’s upset feelings. They’re going to be seen as a troublemaker. The white person is going to withdraw, defend, explain, insist it had to have been a misunderstanding.
If you make an accusation, the accused gets to have his own say in the matter. Justice is not one person making an accusation, and everyone else immediately agreeing with him and not giving the accused an opportunity to defend himself. If I make an accusation, I expect the accused to defend himself. This applies even when I know he’s in the wrong! The author implies that a person defending himself, explaining his actions, and suggesting whatever happened was a misunderstanding is not engaging in acceptable behavior. Only admission of guilt is acceptable. But let’s continue.
There’s a question that’s never failed me in this work to uncover how racism keeps reproducing itself despite all of the evidence we like to give for why it couldn’t be us. And that question isn’t, “Is this true or is this false: Was the person’s intention good or not?” We’re never going to be able to come to an agreement on intentions. You cannot prove somebody’s intentions. They might not even know their intentions. And if they weren’t good, they’re probably not going to admit that. The question I ask is, “How does this function?” The impact of the action is what is relevant.
There is an interesting omission here. Do you see it? We don’t know a person’s intentions with certainty, that is true, though this has not stopped legal proceedings from finding evidence for a motive, and for ruling on such cases. However, note that the defender’s testimony is dismissed as irrelevant because intentions cannot be proven, but thus far in the article, we have not once made similar questions of the accuser’s motives! This is extremely important, because the demand for racist activity far outstrips the supply. This is why we have seen so many hate crime hoaxes of late, including the very public Jussie Smollett affair, but also lesser “crimes” like the Mizzou poop swastika, the receipt with vague racist crap scribbled on it, and others.
A person who claims to be a victim of such an affair is, like the receipt faker, often doing it for social media attention. Posts of sympathy are many. A person makes the evening news, and maybe boosts his failing career. The media eats these affairs up! It’s crack cocaine to a journalist, and people know this. But the author of this piece doesn’t even mention the possibility of a false accusation, and hammers homes a focus on the accused.
Foundationally [we] have to change our idea of what it means to be racist. As long as you define a racist as an individual who intentionally is mean, based on race, you’re going to feel defensive. When I say you’ve been shaped by a racist system—that it is inevitable that you have racist biases and patterns and investments—you’re going to feel offended by that. You will hear it as a comment on your moral character. You’re going to feel offended by that if you don’t change how you’re interpreting what I just said. And I would actually agree with anyone who felt offended when I say, “It is inevitable that you are racist,” if their definition of a racist is someone who means harm.
Note the first sentence. We need to change our idea (the definition) of what the word means. Here we see Progressive thought laid bare: we change the definition of a word or concept. The author is not just admitting that they do this, she is demanding that we be complicit in this change. Note the dictionary definition:
Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.
Note the word “directed” used here. This implies intent, especially when combined with “based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” So to be a racist, you must believe in the superiority of your own race, and direct some form of antagonism or discrimination intentionally toward a person of another race. The author is telling us to change this definition so that her entire book makes sense, because otherwise it’s a form of meaningless nonsense. For her position to be internally coherent we must change the meaning of our own language. She’s telling you this, straight up!
Change how you understand what it means to be racist, and then act on that understanding. Because if you change your understanding, but you don’t do anything different, then you’re colluding.
And now comes the threat. Change the definition, or you’re a traitor/colluder/heretic/whatever. Distilled to its most simplistic form, obey me, or I will call you a mean name. Now many Rightists will scoff and laugh at this. Don’t. Leftists use this tactic because it works on at least some people. Here’s the real weaponization. Obey, or I will apply social peer pressure to you, racist.
In fact, white people measure the value of our schools and neighborhoods by the absence of people of color.
I know exactly what a “good” school is, and I know what we’re talking about. We all know what we’re talking about when we say “good school” versus “bad school.” We use race to measure those things. And now, you take the product of that conditioning, that segregation, that narrow story, and you put that teacher in a position to socialize everyone’s children—and that is a critical piece of [the] school-to-prison pipeline.
The first portion of this bit is actually correct, to at least some degree. Let’s be more specific, however. She uses the term “people of color”, but this doesn’t really work. There are few people bothered by the presence of, say, some Japanese kids or something. Is anybody really worrying about Chinese kids, or Cuban kids? It’s not “people of color” folks worry about (and note that said Japanese, Cuban, and Chinese kids are just as worried as the white kids, if not much more so). It’s much more specific than that. It’s mostly blacks that people worry about. That is the elephant in the room here, that has both Conservatives and Liberals tied up in politically-correct tongue twisters like “people of color” and such, because they can obfuscate the truth behind the idea that people are running in fear from Chinatown or something.
Why is that? Racism? Jim Crow? Or is it rational behavior?
The statistics on black crime are staggeringly bad. And here I am using a source, The Prison Policy Initiative, that is not friendly to my political views (intentionally). People of all races – blacks included – know this. They see first-hand, in many cases, how bad majority-black schools really are. Has the author ever been to Detroit? Washington DC (outside the nice parts)? There is a wealthy black family in my neighborhood. I was told, in polite language, that they left the ghetto they grew up in for good reason. Deep down, blacks know this is true. This is after spending in Detroit schools was elevated to near the highest spending per student in the country. The supposed-racists threw a lot of money at this problem. I suppose they are still guilty, though, right?
Either the statistics are true, and blacks commit crimes at a much higher per-capita rate than any other ethnicity in America, or a lot of people are being falsely convicted. As in most of them. The latter is not very likely. Now, argue all you want on why these things are true. But do not spin this as a “people of color” thing when it clearly isn’t. It is much more specific than that. Tell me, how many of you – even Liberals who found their way here to drop me some hate mail – want to live in a majority-black neighborhood in Detroit?
I don’t call myself a white ally. I’m involved in anti-racist work, but I don’t call myself an anti-racist white. And that’s because that is for people of color to decide, whether in any given moment I’m behaving in anti-racist ways. And notice that that keeps me accountable. It’s for them to determine if in any given moment—it’s not a fixed location—I haven’t made it or arrived. …
Again she tells us that only the accuser’s perspective matters. This is a recipe for complete submission.
A similar sense of gloom hovers over Helena Rosenblatt’s recent book, The Lost History of Liberalism. Rosenblatt presents her work as a history of those who have called themselves liberal through the centuries. More accurately described, however, it is her attempt to redefine liberalism’s founding in order to rescue it from the worrisome future toward which it seems to be headed. Liberalism was founded on commitments to duty, patriotism, self-sacrifice, and the other virtues that guide humanity’s use of freedom, she notes. But contemporary liberals are trading their birthright for an untenable pottage of rights talk and anarchic freedom that lacks solid grounding.
Rosenblatt foresees disaster at the end of that path, and her book is a call from within the liberal tradition to turn back. That alone is worth a cheer.
Indeed, I do welcome liberals who are willing to point out the flaws in liberalism to talk. There are flaws in conservatism, Libertarianism, and other Right-ish beliefs. I will readily admit them. Indeed, a friend of mine who is more Rightist than I am (he absolutely knows who he is) has frequently pointed out where I and others become too tribal in Rightist thinking. Certainly, it has irritated me on occasion, but he is correct to do this. That is Proverbs 27:17 at work. Also, Tom Kratman has frequently challenged my foundations as well, something I do appreciate quite sincerely. And so I do understand that it takes a certain measure to critique your own belief systems at this level. Let’s continue.
Rosenblatt’s central claim, however, is that the word “liberalism” has a strong historical connection to moral virtue. Although virtue has fallen into obscurity in contemporary liberalism, Rosenblatt argues that it needs to be recovered because it is essential to the liberal project.
I am not so certain of this. The idea of the Classical Liberal is a more Rightish thing. But again, I haven’t read her book, so I would need to see the claim in more specificity, and certainly the terms have been muddied and poorly-defined for some time, now. Nonetheless there is some kind of truth to this in the more modern sense. Liberals today are quite obsessed with signalling moral virtue. So it is possible their thought-lineage originates from a place where the moral virtue was more than just a mere signalling of tribal membership and a sort of assumed humility contest. Perhaps over time, the real moral virtue was replaced with the false one. It’s plausible, at least.
There follows a lot of exposition and rebuttals of Rosenblatt’s claim, which I will skip over for purposes of this post, but do give it a read. It is important.
Continental liberals believed that republican self-rule required the people to be educated in moral and civic virtue. In fact, at least in the early years, they seem to have agreed on little else. For many years, liberalism in France and Germany was a grab bag of political projects and policies. Still, these liberals always shared a commitment to republican forms of government founded on a civic virtue inculcated in the populace. They distrusted or even opposed pure democracy as little more than mob rule (although they recognized, especially thanks to Tocqueville, the inevitability of democracy’s rise). Only virtuous citizens, they reasoned, could navigate between the extremes of reactionary royalism and radical democratic revolution. A combination of democratic institutions with the more aristocratic emphasis on virtue would ennoble democracy and prevent the return of the exhausted ancien régime.
But how are citizens to be fitted with the virtue that republican government requires? This question brings us to the second important contribution of this book, and its most curious feature. Liberals concluded that the answer to this question was religion—Christianity, to be specific. Not the Christianity of the Catholic Church, which liberals regarded as the problem; and not the Christianity of orthodox Protestants, either: they, too, had often sided against democratic forces during the French Revolution. Early liberals needed a new theology for the new man at the dawn of a new age.
Here it is worth pausing to note what happened. Titanic figures in liberalism’s history, such as Benjamin Constant, explicitly asserted that liberal forms of government would stand or fall on the success of religion’s moralizing force. For liberalism, religion became good because of its usefulness for politics and not because of its truth. Liberalism instrumentalized religion, subverting it to “higher” political purposes.
Here is where things get interesting. Note that at the end we are given the idea, by the author of the article, that Liberalism used religion in a cynical manner. Voltaire famously encapsulated this with his quotation: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” The full text of the verse it appears in is below:
If the heavens, stripped of his noble imprint,
Could ever cease to attest to his being,
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Let the wise man announce him and kings fear him.
Kings, if you oppress me, if your eminencies disdain
The tears of the innocent that you cause to flow,
My avenger is in the heavens: learn to tremble.
Such, at least, is the fruit of a useful creed.
Such, at least, is the fruit of a useful creed. If we account him a Liberal – and I’m not sure that makes sense in a modern context, but let’s provisionally entertain the idea that Liberal thought-lineage descended from something like this for a moment – this would mean that Liberalism found Christianity useful, possibly irrespective of whether or not it was true. Why is that? And, more interestingly, why would modern Liberals abandon this notion and, quite frequently, scoff at the “stupid Sky Wizard believers” and their antiquated, and potentially racist notions?
I wonder – and this is personal speculation – if it isn’t because Christianity posits that God knows your heart. He knows if your charity is sincere, or if it is for personal status signalling. He knows your intentions. If the author of the White Fragility piece believed in a neutral arbiter who knew your heart, your true intentions, that would change things, wouldn’t it? If her intentions are bad, God knows! And if the accused racist had good intentions, He knows that too! The avenger in the heavens, as Voltaire phrased it, is ready to deliver his righteous fury.
Consider the possibility that belief in God restrained Liberals from doing too much “good” in the name of moral virtue, and shamed those who “sounded the trumpets before them” as in Matthew 6:2. A useful creed indeed!
Rosenblatt’s discernment of this remarkable turn may be the most valuable contribution of the book, yet she does not emphasize it. In fact, she discusses liberalism’s treatment of religion in bits and pieces, scattered throughout the text for the reader to assemble for herself. The upshot of these disconnected observations is that one of liberalism’s greatest successes was to domesticate Christianity, very cleverly, to make it safe for liberal politics. Instead of violently confronting Christian believers, or co-opting Christian figures (tactics that had been tried throughout history by Roman emperors, medieval kings, Enlightenment democrats, and countless others), liberalism colonized Christianity itself.
Bingo! I don’t know that modern Christianity’s essence would be all that recognizable to Christians a thousand years ago because of this colonization. Certainly many of the rituals and catechisms would be recognizable. In fact, as I study Catholicism I am surprised by how little has changed, in that respect. But step outside the trappings of the faith for a moment and look at it from a cultural perspective.
I read a piece many years ago which I tried very hard to find today, but failed. Nonetheless, perhaps a reader of mine may have more success. It was about a historian studying the Black Madonna in France. He discussed the Christianity that created it. How Christ as a baby was wise, but harsh. This wasn’t a happy child, this was the child with the weight of the world on his shoulders. Madonna was a hard woman, focused. Brave. The culture of the time was forged in dirt, grime, and war. Their Christianity was illiberal. The Madonna of later periods was soft, the baby Jesus more child-like (though never fully so). The resilience and hardness was lost. In the end, the historian, who had been contemplating conversion to Catholicism, decided he did not care much for the softer modern church, though he noted the older church might have won him over.
I don’t know how true it really is, as it was one man’s anecdote (though the style changes of the Madonna over time lends itself somewhat to his position) and in this portion I am rambling a bit. But again, it strikes me as plausible that the form of nascent Liberalism present during the Enlightenment did indeed colonize Christianity, and to some extent change its essence in some fashion.
But one group of liberals deliberately set out to remake Christianity from within by developing a radical, new theology, new interpretations of scripture, new publications, and new churches. They succeeded remarkably in gaining adherents. Instead of trying to convert people overnight from Catholicism or orthodox Protestantism to secular humanism and its “pure light of reason” (as French historian Edgar Quinet called it), political liberals used liberal Protestantism as a halfway point from which to pry Christians away from dogma.
Now I don’t know how much of this occurred in Voltaire’s time, but this is definitely true of modern Liberalism, which has overridden tradition and dogma in many churches, including some particularly noteworthy examples like openly gay bishops and pro-abortion views from some churches (here’s an example).
The novelty of the liberal approach was the way it changed the Church from within, via its theology. Today’s young Christians practice what sociologist Christian Smith has described as “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism,” a faith whose history stretches back to the French and German thinkers of the early liberal movement. They developed a new method to bring Christianity to heel and shore up liberal politics, simultaneously.
I’ve spoken on this matter before. Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is a very watered down descendant of Christianity, though not really a form of Christianity itself. Consider it as an intermediate stage between fedora-equipped “brights” and skin-suited churches like the mainline Episcopalians.
They retained the parts of Christianity that spurred people to improve themselves and inculcate civic virtues, but sheared off the strong doctrinal claims that divided society and relativized the state’s authority. They wanted a religion that fitted their practical, political aims. The German Johann Semler coined the term “liberal theology” in 1774 to describe a way of reading the Bible that persuaded him (and other scholars) that Christianity’s core was moral, not dogmatic.
Here is where this piece connects to the first fisk. You see, from dogma – and my instruction in Catholicism – I have clearly-outlined duties, and there are clearly-outlined consequences for failing in them. There is a success condition, and repentance, and forgiveness. Modern Liberalism lacks all of these mechanisms. The White Fragility author talks of microaggressions as if they were grave offenses. Why? Because she lacks a success condition. She must always find new and ever more granular expressions of racism, because she has no defined success condition, nor does she appear to desire one (consciously, anyway).
The accused are guilty, and they are always guilty, and they can never not be guilty. There is no forgiveness. Repentance doesn’t matter, because your intentions don’t matter. Her desired definition for racism is, in effect, Original Sin, except lacking all of the dogmatic success conditions upon which your sins can be forgiven, and you can be made whole. She wants to define the word racism this way. But you can find similar arguments on sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc…
There is no set of duties to absolve you of the guilt. The guilt is forever, and constant, and neither your intentions (which are dismissed as irrelevant) nor your actions (you’re still subconsciously racist) absolve you.
What was designed as a political-theological project to modernize religion and moderate democratic politics has proven to be exceedingly fragile. The liberal political settlement is rapidly fraying, and its theological component has collapsed.
One can easily sympathize with Rosenblatt’s anxiety over the future of the liberal project, which once seemed so promising. However, because she overlooks the most important implications of her work, she misdiagnoses the root cause of the failure of liberalism: its rejection of the kind of Christianity on which it depends. From its earliest days, some of its strongest proponents have recognized that liberalism on its own lacks the resources to form the kind of citizens it requires.
Voltaire was wise enough to understand that, whatever his belief system really was at its core, he still needed God at some level. Humanity still needed God. Nietzsche told us that God was dead, and by implication, that it was the Enlightenment that killed Him. For one, I believe God is still there, but even independent of that thought, the first wave of the Enlightenment did not try such a deed. That was for the successors in the Liberal tradition to attempt.
And where they have succeeded, where they have stripped away the divine, removed dogma, and destroyed the success conditions upon our moral duties, they have left us with only an invented moral preening, a virtue signalling so bereft of meaning and utility it must openly rewrite our very own language to disguise its nature as futile nonsense. It features no redemption, no hope of success. Ray Bradbury warned us of the Autumn People, that they would “frenzy forth”, and now I take his meaning. They have no purpose but to signal their status, but in this they whip themselves into a frenzy. Cut those racist dreadlocks, white boy. You are guilty. We need no trial, no defense. Only the accusation ever mattered, and even there, the intent is meaningless.
One SJW explained that Elon Musk was a racist because he launched his car into space and didn’t spend the money on Flint’s water supply, as if it was his duty to attend to such matters, and not that of another, like say the duly elected government charged with the job. Why could she make such an absurd claim, and why would it stick with many Lefties? Because they have no success condition, no list of moral duties, nothing to benchmark anything against. Only accusations, which are proof of guilt, matter at all.
You, dear reader, did you donate all of your wealth to some Liberal political cause? No? You are guilty! All it takes is one accusation!
Sound your moral trumpets before you, for surely you are holier than thou, yes?
Ask a modern Liberal: “what duties must I fulfill, upon which I may be judged as having satisfied my moral responsibility?” Most will respond with vague platitudes. Save the world from Climate Change (I can’t do this, supposing their notion of what this means is even true), end racism (they told me this can categorically never happen), etc, etc… Their lack of dogma leads them to wander a twisted moral landscape with no compass, no grounding, until they are spouting absurdities about tri-gender gay 3 year olds, because somebody, somewhere, accused someone who was against it of unforgivable sin. Remember, only the accusation matters.
Liberalism disconnected with Christianity over time. And the more it did so, the more it lost that grounding. Almost none of it remains today. As such, we are all sinners – that is the one point which survived the ideological culling – but there is no redemption to be had. The guilt is forever, racist.
The misery of such an existence is hard to fathom. For the first time in a long time, I almost pity them.
Neither I, nor most of America is OK with this. It’s past time to deal with this. Yes, I now that food, including that served in restaurants, will have their price increase. Yes, I do understand that the cost of construction, lawn service, and other businesses that use a lot of illegal alien labor will have their costs raise, which will lead to higher prices.
Tough. Suck it up, Buttercup.
It’s worth it to get rid of Illegal Aliens, and send them home.
Let’s work to get those RINOs out of office, and replace them with those that will reliably vote Pro-America. There is more than enough time to find such people – and VET THEM PROPERLY. No one whose background cannot stand SEVERE scrutiny should be supported in their race. We don’t need another Pretend Republican voting against all of the issues that we need to hold the line on.
She posted about the experiences of children in the Baby Boom, when it was the norm to raise Free-Range Children, who managed their own neighborhood relationships, without excessive parental interference. Such children grew into adults who were, largely, able to handle their own life without leaning on their parents long after reaching the age of adulthood.
That type of childhood is largely facilitated by the presence of older and younger siblings, both in the child’s immediate family, as well as the parent’s. The spread of family members fills in the gaps between parent and child, and allows people other than parents – who have a vested, familial interest in the outcome of conflicts – to occasionally assist with guidance and mediation.
Yes, brothers and sisters can demonstrate physical aggression, hostility, and just plain meanness on occasion. They can also be led to show compassion, help teach some of life’s hard lessons, and protect family members from bullying. I wonder if at least some of the rise in bullying is because the bullies no longer fear retribution from outraged family members. Brothers and sisters will often know what’s happening at school before either the parents or the school staff get a whiff of trouble. Back in the day, many bullies were deterred by the thought that they would have to face that older sibling, should they bully the wrong kid.
Larger families are often believed to be unaffordable. This is wrong for several reasons:
The initial cost is large, but for subsequent children, the infrastructure is present. No need to buy most of the furniture new for the next kid, such as strollers, car seat, crib, etc. For many families, the biggest initial cost is the loss of a second paycheck, That cost will not increase with additional kids.
Once the commitment to managing on one paycheck is made, purchases such as homes and cars are viewed with an eye to how affordable they are for the chosen lifestyle. For that reason, it’s important for families not to lock in a lifestyle that requires two paychecks. From the start, they should commit to living on one paycheck (as soon as possible – sometimes, prior debt must be cleared first).
College is one big expense that is often brought up. This negates the tuition reduction that comes with more family dependents. It also puts more pressure on the graduate to choose his/her college, and major, with an eye to the best bang for the buck. That’s a feature, not a bug, as kids SHOULD learn that budgets are necessary.
Seeing the example of parents working as a team for maximum family good is a wonderful model for life. That team experience comes years before sports participation, and has a greater impact on their character.
Budgeting, a necessity for nearly all larger families, allows kids to learn about the value of prioritizing needs over wants. It might also prod some of the older kids to get a part-time job – that experience alone is priceless. Better a paid job that a make-work “internship” – the lessons a REAL job teaches are beyond compare.
In today’s neighborhoods, the larger family is often a magnet for the “lonely onlies”. The solo child gets swept in the melee, and gains an understanding of how more-or-less equals – the kids – learn to bargain, discuss, disagree, and make up. What they learn in that smaller arena will serve them well in career and life.
There is a distinction that is often lost on the less-analytical among us:
A person could be a legal immigrant – someone who applied for immigration in their OWN country, or in the nearest safe country to their own. Who waited until he/she/xer was given permission to enter the USA, and get what used to be called a Green Card – a card showing that the holder is LEGALLY resident in the USA. Such a care does NOT automatically give that holder the privilege of working, nor does it allow them the rights of citizens, including the right to vote.
A person might have originally had the legal right to enter – usually for a very limited period. That category can include:
Those given permission to enter to take a temporary job – includes the H1-B visa holders, artists, musicians, actors, etc. They do NOT have the right to stay beyond the term indicated in their visa.
Those who are students – occasionally in high school (for example, exchange students), more usually college or graduate school. They may NOT work while here, nor collect government benefits.
Those who overstay their visa – a VERY large category. Often, the temporary permission is abused by those who never intended to leave in the first place. MANY of those in this category work without having had a permit to do so.
A person may have, while underage, been brought into this country. These would be the DACA kids (although many are NOT kids, and lied about the age they came in). They have been given Deferred Action (that’s the DA part of the phrase), but they are STILL illegally present. That distinction is lost on the many women who reason with their female parts. For them, these “kids” are already legal, and only the Meanies in the Foreign-People-Hating Party are keeping them from the American Dream!
A person may have reached these shores fleeing for their life – some of them from Muslim countries, or Cuba, or China. These are the ones that asylum was designed to assist, not those who bypassed other countries to get higher-paying jobs in the USA. VERY few of the people pressing against the southern border fall into this category.
Let’s start with the first problem, right on the 4th page:
Every individual who is a resident of the United States is entitled to benefits for health care services under this Act. The Secretary shall promulgate a rule that provides criteria for determining residency for eligibility purposes under this Act.
That’s the Secretary of HHS, who will be saying who is – and is not – a resident. Now, I’m PRETTY sure that, under Trump, that qualification would be quite narrow.
But, should a Democrat – I mean, Leftist (but, I repeat myself) – get elected, or another RINO, is there anyone who believes that the rule will become considerably more elastic?
The very next Freakin’ page says it all.
—No person shall, on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, marital status, citizenship status, primary language use, genetic conditions, previous or existing medical conditions, religion, or sex, including sex stereotyping, gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy and related medical conditions (including termination of pregnancy), be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the program established under this Act
OK, straight upfront, the bill SAYS that noncitizens, those seeking “gender reassignment”, and those wanting abortions WILL be able to get services. Without charge – excuse me, I mean – Taxpayer-Provided Services, not free.
The one facet of the Original Medicare, and its various alternatives, such as Medicare Advantage, that kept it affordable, was the various ways that users picked up part of the cost. They did this through co-pays and deductibles, primarily.
That’s out now.
The Secretary shall ensure that no cost-sharing, including deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or similar charges, is imposed on an individual for any benefits provided under this Act.
Well, that’s it. Without those means of ensuring that people don’t abuse the system by running to doctors for every little thing, the system cannot function.
The House is prepared to co-opt nurses and doctors by throwing them a chip:
mandatory minimum safe registered nurse-to-patient staffing ratios and optimal staffing levels for physicians and other health care practitioners;
Although the staffing requirements SOUND rigorous, the bill ASSUMES that it’s just fine to grandfather acceptance of two services that are notorious for having sub-standard care.
Any provider qualified to provide health care items and services through the Department of Veterans Affairs or Indian Health Service is a qualifying provider under this section with respect to any individual who qualifies for such items and services under applicable Federal law.
So, YAY! We’re gonna get care JUST AS GOOD as the VA and Indian Affairs recipients do!
Now, where will the unions fit into this? And, they WILL fit in, or ELSE.
The Secretary shall consult with Federal agencies, Indian tribes and urban Indian health organizations, and private entities, such as labor organizations representing health care workers, professional societies, national associations, nationally recognized associations of health care experts, medical schools and academic health centers, consumer groups, and business organizations in the formulation of guidelines, regulations, policy initiatives, and information gathering to ensure the broadest and most informed input in the administration of this Act. Nothing in this Act shall prevent the Secretary from adopting guidelines, consistent with the provisions of section 203(c), developed by such a private entity if, in the Secretary’s judgment, such guidelines are generally accepted as reasonable and prudent and consistent with this Act.
In other words, the labor unions, women’s ‘health’ centers (abortion advocates), and a whole host of NGOs will be giving “input”. That last part means that these partisan groups have carte blanche to write guidelines that favor them and dis-favor taxpayers, churches, and others opposing this wholesale takeover of our economy.
This next section is priceless.
It is the sense of Congress that tens of millions of people in the United States do not receive healthcare services while billions of dollars that could be spent on providing health care are diverted to profit. There is a moral imperative to correct the massive deficiencies in our current health system and to eliminate profit from the provision of health care.
Karl Marx would be SO proud!
But, wait! There’s more – oooh, the drug manufacturers are gonna get it – HARD.
with respect to a drug, in the case that the Secretary is unable to successfully negotiate an appropriate price for a covered drug for a negotiated price period, the Secretary shall authorize the use of any patent, clinical trial data, or other exclusivity granted by the Federal Government with respect to such drug as the Secretary determines appropriate for purposes of manufacturing such drug for sale under Medicare for All Program. Any entity making use of a competitive license to use patent, clinical trial data, or other exclusivity under this section shall provide to the manufacturer holding such exclusivity reasonable compensation, as determined by the Secretary
Eh, what the heck, at least the pharmaceutical companies will still be able to operate, as long as they bend on the price. And, don’t worry about the price they’ll likely get from the Secretary. Everyone KNOWS that negotiations that limit walking away from the deal are MUCH better than those in which both sides have to compromise!
Eh, not quite. They will have to give up information – whatever the Secretary of HHS requires (including processing/manufacturing secrets?).
—The Secretary may require pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose to the Secretary such information that the Secretary determines necessary for purposes of carrying out this subsection.
Oh, don’t be such a Gloomy Gus! I KNOW that we can trust the dedicated civil servants not to blab that information to competitors or other countries!
But, don’t worry! The money appropriated is SAFE – it will be in the TITLE VII—UNIVERSAL MEDICARE TRUST FUND! And we all know just how well the government has managed Trust Funds in the past, don’t we?
Even MORE takeovers than the Original Obamacare!
Each workers compensation carrier that is liable for payment for workers compensation services furnished in a State shall reimburse the Medicare for All Program for the cost of such services.
In other words, the money that WC charges employers for coverage will be ADDED to the mix. Rather than just assume that the MFAA will cover workers, this section allows a ‘claw-back’ of money paid to the WC fund. In other words, MFAA has figured out how to TAX the INDIVIDUAL STATES! A true innovation!
States use the freedom they have to set their own priorities on Medicaid expenditures; children are often covered under the SCHIP provisions, that allows states to set the rules for what coverage their poorer citizens might receive.
no individual is entitled to medical assistance under a State child health plan under title XXI of such Act for any item or service furnished on or after such date;
School programs will also be subsumed under MFAA.
Guys, this bill is such an abomination that it SHOULD be obvious even to the Brain-Dead – another word for Leftists. But, after seeing how well our elected officials managed the Steamroller AKA Obamacare, I think it’s clear that we need to raise awareness of the contents of this Hot Mess.
Call, fax, email all the usual suspects/politicians, and register your displeasure with this crap. Feel free to make a copy of this – don’t forget to credit The Declination – http://thedeclination.com/mfaa-medicare-for-all-act-updated/ – and share it on social media, work, public places, etc. – really, anywhere you might reach someone who will listen before it’s too late.
He was the king of what is now called Corinth, He was both deceitful and cruel, but his big mistake was to piss off Zeus. For that, he was condemned to roll a boulder uphill. As it neared the top, the boulder would roll again to the bottom.
Well, America is like that about abortion. Just as we start making headway on changing public opinion (thanks lately to Unplanned and Gosnell, the movie), the Leftists work to roll the progress we’ve made back to square one.