Friday, January 29, 2016

7th Republican Debate - Cruz effectively says: Elect Democrat

WALLACE: Senator Cruz, now you get a chance to respond.
CRUZ: Chris, I would note that that the last four questions have been, "Rand, please attack Ted. Marco, please attack Ted. Chris, please attack Ted. Jeb, please attack Ted..."
Let me just say this...
WALLACE: ... It is a debate, sir.
CRUZ: ... Well, no, no. A debate actually is a policy issue, but I will say this. Gosh, if you guys ask one more mean question I may have to leave the stage. [A knod to Donald Trump, which, in context, justified his not wasting time being there.  It is a debate, and thus should cover real issues -- even if that is not the nature of Republican policies and methods.]
Chris, the most important determination any voter is going to make in this election is who's best prepared to be Commander in Chief. Who has the experience, who has the knowledge, who has the judgement, who has the clarity, and vision and strength of resolve to keep this country safe. That is what this debate is all about, and I would suggest let's stay focused on those issues -- rather than just attacks directed at each other.

Who can be Commander-in-Chief?

Is it someone who vows to murder people half way around the world?  Or someone who has the experience negotiating with those people on behalf of the United States?  That last sounds like it's possible Cruz might have, subliminally, been endorsing Hillary Clinton.  We know he wasn't, but the facts are clear, Hillary is the only person, the only candidate, who has experience speaking to, and the only person that is personally known to, the foreign leaders who are the ones America needs to know to keep itself safe.  
Trump has also negotiated with them, but not in terms of national security -- something which occasionally means foregoing profit and the ability to proclaim "I WON".   There are times when disengagement -- like the act of NOT taking part in a debate, or looking weak as your people are airlifted from the roof of the American Embassy (as happened in Vietnam) -- is actually a demonstration of strength.  The idea is to know when NOT to fight.  But that also requires that you allow the other to "save face" -- you cannot bully and insult your way to safety.
Cruz knows he is ineligible to be POTUS; he knows, if nominated, he would be sued and he would lose that lawsuit.  Granted, SCOTUS would probably delay the hearing on the matter until after the popular vote -- if the Cruz Ticket lost, the matter would be moot and there would be no basis for a hearing; only if Cruz won would the issue need to be argued and definitively resolved.  The resolution would negate some  Naturalization Laws and some immigration rights laws; it would also open the Government to lawsuits based upon prior denials of "Due Process" as befitting "Natural-Born Citizens" with an alien national parent and born in a location where they are, at birth, foreign nationals.
On Monday, the Iowa Caucus will determine if Cruz moves forward and the nation passes the first marker toward a possible Constitutional Crisis.  If the voters of Iowa care about America, they will reject Cruz -- thus creating a massive news cycle with various pundits attempting to explain how the "Polls" could be so very very wrong.  But, the bottom line?  Iowa would establish that America considers the Constitution important, and no a plaything for the BIRTHER types to use when they wish to lie about  a POTUS whose race they hate, and ignore when their candidate meets all the criteria they put forward as representing an illegitimate POTUS or candidate for that office.
But all that BIRTHER dishonesty stuff was discussed in 2014, in "The Tea Party: America Upended"

Thursday, January 21, 2016

OPEN NOTE to Bernie Sanders

OK, I sent it in private, but got no acknowledgement from Bernie, so now we'll go public.
The following note deals with his cost of expanding ACA to cover everyone.  If the published numbers ... rather than the lack of data Bernie provides ... are to be believed, the cost Bernie cites are actually NET OF A TRILLION DOLLAR SAVINGS.

The tax money, or tax raise, represents a replacement of current medical premiums -- and also represents an enormous saving to the general public and the businesses owned by those 1% types, who would actually be paying it out of increased net revenue.  Thus, even paying more in taxes, their net of tax income would be larger.   Suire the Insurance companies will bitch, but they hire people for the express purpose of refusing to pay on claims, so should we, or they, really care?

OK ... here's the email I sent:


First, you can look me up in Who's Who {no, I did not say which Who's Who -- I'm in twelve different ones in the USA, as well as related references in every English speaking nation, so whatever is on the shelf from the last three decades} -- I like numbers and the numbers Bernie is credited with don't make sense the way they are stated.
The headline "Bernie Sanders Healthcare Plan: 'Medicare-for-All' Proposal Estimated at $1.4 Trillion Per Year"
In the debate we have the statement "What a Medicare-for-all program does is finally provide in this country health care for every man, woman, and child as a right."  and  "Tell me why we are spending almost three times more than the British, who guarantee health care to all of their people?"

TheWorld Bank states: In United States 9% of GDP -- 9% of $16.77 trillion USD (2013) -- or $1.5 trillion is spent on Private health expenditure includes direct household (out-of-pocket) spending, private insurance, charitable donations, and direct service payments by private corporations.

Medicaid and Medicare account for, respectively, 14% and 9% of the federal budget; or, in FY 2014, $505 billion and $492.3 billion. That adds another $1 Trillion.  But Bernie seems to be saying he is going to ADD $1.4 Trillion to a $2.5 Trillion dollar current expenditure.

However, I believe he meant that he was going to REDUCE the expenditure to $1.4 trillion and, therefore, SA VE the American Public $1 trillion per year -- by calling upon Capitalist efficiency and productivity, in the same way, the European nations have.  But, because this is America, we will do it better and more efficiently.  Unless the Republicans wish to insist on an inefficient economy designed to impoverish Americans rather than enable them to prosper as Americans have, for the past century proved they can better than any nation on earth.  (If that sounds like a TRUMP make America great again line, so be it.  Bernie does believe in American Greatness, doesn't he?)

Why isn't it savings?  Why do I believe he really meant it to be a huge cost saving? Because America currently spends $8,233 per person, and Europe spends $3,268, meaning they spend 40 cents on the dollar, to have more doctors (2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people — well below the OECD average of 3.1; The number of hospital beds in the U.S. was 2.6 per 1,000 population in 2009, lower than the OECD average of 3.4 beds.) and easier access to medical care.  

Part of the savings will come from including Veterans in the program. They will receive top rated local medical care rather than having to travel hundreds of miles to an underfunded VA facility.  The Republicans have repeatedly made it a point to ignore the medical post-service needs of our Veterans -- that must stop.  By removing medical insurance payments, and replacing them with the tax Bernie mentioned, the average American will save significant amounts monthly -- how much -- each can look at the payments their family now makes, or their employer makes on their behalf and gets an exact amount.

Of course, Bernie might not agree with my assessment.  He might like being TORN APART over simple phrasing, or he might actually mean he plans to increase American Healthcare costs.

But, as I believe my interpretation of his goal indicates, ACA is not eliminated -- it is simplified and expanded to include every American CITIZEN and LEGALLY DOCUMENTED RESIDENT (possibly, as in Europe, legally documented visitors would also receive some level of basic care).  

W. Lawrence Lipton

Saturday, January 16, 2016

President TED CRUZ - expert at "Lawyer's Lies"

It seems, in the debate, Ted Cruz demonstrated a "Lawyer's Lie" - the use of scrambled facts to distract from the real issue. In this case, the fact the Trump is correct, Cruz would NOT BE ELIGIBLE to assume office of POTUS; trump suggested Cruz for VP slot - again not eligible; but as VP, any legal battles would not directly affect the election, and if Cruz was victorious, he could run for POTUS office at a later date.
FIVE STARS to DONALD TRUMP for reading the book ["President Ted Cruz: The 2016 Election and America's Future"] and learning the relevant law.
Given the context, in stating this, Cruz actually lied by telling the truth: "Under longstanding U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen."
The lie is slit: if born on foreign soil to two American parents assigned there by the government or an American corporation in the normal course of business, the child is deemed "natural-born".
Cruz then gives examples:
1: "If a soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen. That's why John McCain, even though he was born in Panama, was eligible to run for president." BOTH of McCain's parents were American, and his father was an officer on Panama Canal military base. Had he been a combat soldier and foreign-national woman, the child would be citizen same way Cruz became one; NATURALIZED BY INHERITANCE, A STATUS THAT IS APPLIED FOR UNDER THE NATURALIZATION LAWS.
Again, a misrepresentation by Cruz: "If an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen. That's why George Romney, Mitt's dad, was eligible to run for president, even though he was born in Mexico." BOTH parents American, in Mexico as Morman missionaries in the normal course of church business.
As Cruz said: "At the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward, " then Cruz turns from law into distraction and concludes, "but I would note that the BIRTHER theories that Donald has been relying on -- some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil but have two parents born on U.S. soil." This is a British concept from 1754, it has no relevance, especially in the context of next assertion and the 7th POTUS, Andrew Jackson.
Cruz factually stated conclusion, based on falsely inferred interpretation of irrelevant definition of "natural-born" (even British discarded it a few years later): "Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified and, interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified.
"Because -- because Donald's mother was born in Scotland. She was naturalized. Now, Donald..."
TRUMP correctly responds: "But I was born here."
The factual application is with Trump. BOTH of Andrew Jackson's parents were born in Ireland, based upon Cruz's fallacious assertion, as the 7th POTUS at a time when everyone knew what natural-born meant, Jackson should have been ineligible; that renders all his actions illegal, and a large chunk of the modern USA, which he annexed, is therefore not American property; any laws he signed are invalid and decisions or rulings based on them are therefore invalid.
CRUZ, being consistent with the "Lawyer's Lie" then dismisses his own argument: "... on the issue of citizenship, Donald, I'm not going to use your mother's birth against you."
TRUMP 's response is correct: "OK, good. Because it wouldn't work."
CRUZ then uses his acknowledgment to include himself (one who is ineligible) with those to whom the example he gave was made irrelevant based upon the reality of the Jackson Administration: "You're an American, as is everybody else on this stage,..."
The ability of a great deceiver of men to do the job is delightful to watch. Cruz is the anointed king of deceivers.

Reality 2017 is about to set in.