Baby Steps
28th November 2017, 14:35
Now I don’t know that much about her, but enough to see the pattern. As a human being good luck to her, but as an electoral possibility one has to accept that one would be voting for ‘ More of the same’. Will people fall for the ‘change’ psi-op ONCE AGAIN? This beautiful , powerful, intelligent, engaging, charming , strong woman will convince many that she is an agent of the change we are looking for. Yes, many will fall for it, and that deception will be a defining moment for those people, they will have taken the opportunity to, once again, show their total snowflake-ness.
A QUICK ‘SNOWFLAKE’DEFINITION
Many people who fall under the soft left category. Among their concerns are that everybody on earth gets to live a lovely life, free from discrimination, violence, exploitation etc. So far so good. But where they fall down is in the discernment skill (or lack of it). They tend to think that if the politician they like makes kind wholesome statements about children, race, sexuality, poverty, education etc (stuff that would fall under the category of IDENTITY POLITICS), then they are the politicians we need. Snowflakes give these politicians a PASS on issues where hard policy changes are required- if there is a social issue that needs to be addressed by reducing the influence of CORPORATE INTERESTS, or other dangerous lobbies like the war lobby, these leaders remain silent and continue to serve their real masters- the shadowy lobbies.
THE ESTABLISHMENT’S STRATEGY
It is essential for TPTB to continue the illusion of our democracy. The idea that voting makes a difference. We are, therefore, allowed from time to time, to elect people on the left who are less likely to serve the war and social destruction agenda. To preserve the illusion of democracy, it is essential to allow these people in, so the establishment devotes extraordinary efforts to ensure that those that get into the position where they will be temporarily influencing policy are ‘FAKE’ – they can mouth the slogans effectively, but will do little to nothing to push forward positive change. THIS is who Michelle is – a creature of the establishment – the same establishment that brought us 9/11, endless wars, extrajudicial drone killings, destabilisation and illegal attacks on sovereign states, corporate tyranny, etc etc.
THE CHARGE SHEET
1. COHABITATION WITH A WAR CRIMINAL
We all know Obama’s charge sheet, and he does get credit for trying to stop WW3 by shrinking from shock and awe in Syria, and stopping HC from sending lethal aid to the Ukranians. Sorry the charges stand. There was NO legal justification for destroying Libya, it is a crime as defined by the Nuremberg principles. Is has also, obviously been a catastrophe strategically, with ISIS etc entrenched there now.
On Obama’s watch, the buffer state Ukraine , on Russia’s border was destabilised by the CIA. In truth this brought us to the edge of WW3, because of its geographical position. Imagine if Russia wanted to form an alliance with Mexico and deploy S400 missile systems along the border. Why would our leaders play fast and loose with our and our children’s lives??
On Obama’s watch, the Syrian insurgency was fomulgated by US, Saudi, Qatari, British , Turkish etc interests. There are still snowflakes who do not appreciate this. To them I ask: How come unprotected trucks loaded with millions of dollars of oil were allowed to drive unmolested from Raqa to NATO Turkey and it’s black market, under the guns of US warthogs at Incerlik, and in full sight of US satellites for almost 2 years? . This is also a question for Michelle.
On Obama’s watch we have seen indiscriminate drone killings all over the place. Families, schools, weddings - all have been hit. How can Michelle and the snowflakes be comfortable with these crimes? To make it even more obvious we now have news that under Trump, drones are being used against the opium factories in Afghanistan. Good. But how come all Obama’s droning left any for Trump??? Michelle, really, how stupid do you think we are?
On Obama’s watch whole populations were (and are) being systematically destroyed in Yemen and Palestine by US allies. Michelle, how can you stay silent? It is the mark of a snowflake that such horrors are ignored. There seems, in the minds of snowflakes to be ‘good’ and ‘bad’ babies, and our leaders are good at judging which is which!
2. MICHELLE’S ROLE IN HEALTH CARE HORRORS
Check the following article (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/03/michelle_obamas_patientdumping_1.html):
The First Lady helped create a notorious program that dumped poor patients on community hospitals, yet the national media ignore the story. Imagine if her husband were a Republican.
The University of Chicago Medical Center has received a good deal of justly opprobrious press over its policy of "redirecting" low-income patients to community hospitals while reserving its own beds for well-heeled patients requiring highly profitable procedures. Substantial coverage was given to a recent indictment of the program by the American College of Emergency Physicians. ACEP's president, Dr. Nick Jouriles, released a statementsuggesting that the initiative comes "dangerously close to ‘patient dumping,' a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act, and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick' wealthy patients over poor."
Oddly absent from most of the unflattering press coverage of UCMC's patient-dumping scheme is any mention of the role our new First Lady played in devising the program. A laudable exception has been the Chicago Sun-Times, which reported last August that "Michelle Obama -- currently on unpaid leave from her $317,000-a-year job as a vice president of the prestigious hospital -- helped create the program."
On the rare occasions when other "news" media have bothered to connect the Urban Health Initiative to its glamorous creator, they have attempted to whitewash this tawdry program. Typical of such disingenuous coverage was a story in the Washington Post, which described it as "an innovative program to steer the patients to existing neighborhood clinics."
But no amount of journalistic lipstick can hide the reality that Mrs. Obama's initiative is a patient-dumping scheme. Such "cherry-picking," as Dr. Jouriles accurately describes it, was, at one time, fairly common. Prestigious institutions like the University of Chicago Medical Center routinely "dumped" Medicaid, uninsured and other unprofitable patients on less mercenary community hospitals. Many patients suffered needlessly, and more than a few actually died, as the result of this practice. So, in 1986, President Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act (EMTALA) into law. EMTALA made such "redirection" illegal, but many high profile hospitals still chafed at being forced to treat poor patients. Enter Michelle Obama, UCMC's "Vice President for Community and External Affairs."
Mrs. Obama first hatched the UCMC program as the "South Side Health Collaborative," which featured a gang of "counselors" whose job it was to "advise" low-income patients that they would be better off at other hospitals and clinics. The program was so successful in getting rid of unwanted patients that she expanded it, gave it a new name, and hired none other than David Axelrod to sell the program to the public. According to the Sun-Times, "Obama's wife and Valerie Jarrett, an Obama friend and adviser who chairs the medical center's board, backed the Axelrod firm's hiring." Axelrod helped the future First Lady formulate a public relations campaign in which the "Urban Health Initiative" was represented as a boon to the community actuated by the purest of altruistic motives.
The resultant PR campaign was a study in Orwellian audacity. Chicago's inner city residents soon began hearing that UCMC's patient dumping program would "dramatically improve health care for thousands of South Side residents" and that the medical center was generously willing to provide "a ride on a shuttle bus to other centers." Likewise, the people who ran the community hospitals to which these unwanted patients were being shuttled began to read claims in local media to the effect that the Urban Health Initiative was good for them as well. Dr. Eric Whitaker, the Blagojevich crony who succeeded Mrs. Obama as Director of the program, repeatedly assured gullible reporters that the financial impact on these hospitals would be positive: "The initiative actually is improving their bottom lines." The CFOs of those hospitals were no doubt relieved to learn that treating Medicaid and uninsured patients is profitable.
But you just can't please some people. In one of the few frank passages of the Post article, we discover that many members of UCMC's medical staff believe the program is nothing more than an "attempt to ensure that the hospital retains only affluent patients with insurance." And another association of emergency physicians has joined ACEP in denouncing the Urban Health Initiative. The Chicago Tribune reports that Dr. Larry Weiss, president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine is unhappy about UCMC's failure to consult its own ER physicians before initiating the program: "Not including emergency-room physicians ... would be analogous to changing the way surgery is performed in an operating room without involving any surgeons." Dr. Whitaker assures us, however, that such critics are merely "opposed to change."
Presumably, he would be similarly dismissive of Angela Adams, who brought her son to the medical center's ER after his lip had been partially torn off by a pit bull. As the Tribune puts it, "Instead of rushing Dontae into surgery ... the hospital's staff began pressing her about insurance." Unfortunately for Dontae, he was covered by Medicaid. So, all he got from the UCMC emergency department was a shot, some antibiotics, and instructions to "follow up with Cook County." Angela had to take her son across town to John Stroger Hospital, where he was immediately admitted for reconstructive surgery. Like doctors Jouriles and Weiss, Angela is having trouble seeing the community benefit of the Urban Health Initiative.
Meanwhile, the program's parents, Michelle Obama and David Axelrod, have moved to Washington. As the First Lady and the President's closest advisor, they wield enormous power. Indeed, they may be the most powerful people in the Obama Administration, aside from the President himself. If these two characters were willing to betray their Chicago neighbors -- the South Side's most vulnerable citizens -- with a disgraceful program like the Urban Health Initiative, what sort of mischief will they devise for the hapless denizens of flyover country?
Come to think of it, isn't Obamacare being sold to us in pretty much the same way the Urban Health Initiative was sold to Chicago?
So here’s my problem. Michelle was earning considerably more than her husband was at the time, working at Director level in a very prestigious group of hospitals. From my ‘socialised health care’ perspective this means she is complicit in all the injustices of the US health Care system. There is a libertarian point that says- if a citizen in unwilling to participate and contribute to society, by creating wealth and bettering themselves, why should they receive the same health care as someone more productive? There are socialistic counters to this idea but the main one is that the cards are stacked against many underprivileged people. It is hard or impossible for them to better themselves. Morally, as they are excluded from society’s bounty, society owes them some health care, surely? Well, not according to Michelle. Her role was the DESIGN and IMPLEMENTATION of the system of Patient dumping – of course driven by profit . Michelle, this is far from nice!
3. BLATANT SNOWFLAKE PSI-OPS
See her speech (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/14/michelle-obama-speech-transcript-donald-trump) regarding ‘let girls learn’. It sounds so nice.
See, on Tuesday, at the White House, we celebrated the International Day of the Girl and Let Girls Learn, and it was a wonderful celebration. It was the last event that I’m going to be doing as first lady for Let Girls Learn. And I had the pleasure of spending hours talking to some of the most amazing young women you will ever meet, young girls here in the US and all around the world. And we talked about their hopes and their dreams. We talked about their aspirations. See, because many of these girls have faced unthinkable obstacles just to attend school, jeopardizing their personal safety, their freedom, risking the rejection of their families and communities.
So I thought it would be important to remind these young women how valuable and precious they are. I wanted them to understand that the measure of any society is how it treats its women and girls. And I told them that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and I told them that they should disregard anyone who demeans or devalues them, and that they should make their voices heard in the world. And I walked away feeling so inspired, just like I’m inspired by all the young people here – and I was so uplifted by these girls.
Dear Michelle, I want to live in a world where these issues are acknowledged by our leaders. We elect leaders who will actually produce policy to address these problems. NOT just evoke emotional language. I want to see you speaking in a more direct fashion about what is really happening in the world to little girls:
1. They are being trafficked into abuse and death at the hands of our politicians and their cronies
2. Our governments are destabilising countries, which impacts on the life opportunities of young girls.
3. Our allies are bombing innocent girls in large numbers for spurious reasons.
4. We remain silent when our allies practise sexual discrimination towards girls.
5. At home in the USA, young innocent girls are receiving poor health care and education because of the family background that they happen to have been born into.
6. Young girls who aspire to educate themselves are being saddled with unsustainable debt.
7. Young girls are being mistreated by the Police, often with racial motivation.
8. Young girls are succumbing to a plague of auto immune diseases, allergies, brain inflammation etc as a result of vaccination abuse.
9. Young girls,denied the opportunity to better themselves due to economic stagnation, are thereby coerced into a military career, and join the killing spree – yes , we are making them into murderers.
10. Young girls are being poisoned by their WATER
Michelle, before my eyes are going to get misty, you have a lot to say.
A QUICK ‘SNOWFLAKE’DEFINITION
Many people who fall under the soft left category. Among their concerns are that everybody on earth gets to live a lovely life, free from discrimination, violence, exploitation etc. So far so good. But where they fall down is in the discernment skill (or lack of it). They tend to think that if the politician they like makes kind wholesome statements about children, race, sexuality, poverty, education etc (stuff that would fall under the category of IDENTITY POLITICS), then they are the politicians we need. Snowflakes give these politicians a PASS on issues where hard policy changes are required- if there is a social issue that needs to be addressed by reducing the influence of CORPORATE INTERESTS, or other dangerous lobbies like the war lobby, these leaders remain silent and continue to serve their real masters- the shadowy lobbies.
THE ESTABLISHMENT’S STRATEGY
It is essential for TPTB to continue the illusion of our democracy. The idea that voting makes a difference. We are, therefore, allowed from time to time, to elect people on the left who are less likely to serve the war and social destruction agenda. To preserve the illusion of democracy, it is essential to allow these people in, so the establishment devotes extraordinary efforts to ensure that those that get into the position where they will be temporarily influencing policy are ‘FAKE’ – they can mouth the slogans effectively, but will do little to nothing to push forward positive change. THIS is who Michelle is – a creature of the establishment – the same establishment that brought us 9/11, endless wars, extrajudicial drone killings, destabilisation and illegal attacks on sovereign states, corporate tyranny, etc etc.
THE CHARGE SHEET
1. COHABITATION WITH A WAR CRIMINAL
We all know Obama’s charge sheet, and he does get credit for trying to stop WW3 by shrinking from shock and awe in Syria, and stopping HC from sending lethal aid to the Ukranians. Sorry the charges stand. There was NO legal justification for destroying Libya, it is a crime as defined by the Nuremberg principles. Is has also, obviously been a catastrophe strategically, with ISIS etc entrenched there now.
On Obama’s watch, the buffer state Ukraine , on Russia’s border was destabilised by the CIA. In truth this brought us to the edge of WW3, because of its geographical position. Imagine if Russia wanted to form an alliance with Mexico and deploy S400 missile systems along the border. Why would our leaders play fast and loose with our and our children’s lives??
On Obama’s watch, the Syrian insurgency was fomulgated by US, Saudi, Qatari, British , Turkish etc interests. There are still snowflakes who do not appreciate this. To them I ask: How come unprotected trucks loaded with millions of dollars of oil were allowed to drive unmolested from Raqa to NATO Turkey and it’s black market, under the guns of US warthogs at Incerlik, and in full sight of US satellites for almost 2 years? . This is also a question for Michelle.
On Obama’s watch we have seen indiscriminate drone killings all over the place. Families, schools, weddings - all have been hit. How can Michelle and the snowflakes be comfortable with these crimes? To make it even more obvious we now have news that under Trump, drones are being used against the opium factories in Afghanistan. Good. But how come all Obama’s droning left any for Trump??? Michelle, really, how stupid do you think we are?
On Obama’s watch whole populations were (and are) being systematically destroyed in Yemen and Palestine by US allies. Michelle, how can you stay silent? It is the mark of a snowflake that such horrors are ignored. There seems, in the minds of snowflakes to be ‘good’ and ‘bad’ babies, and our leaders are good at judging which is which!
2. MICHELLE’S ROLE IN HEALTH CARE HORRORS
Check the following article (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/03/michelle_obamas_patientdumping_1.html):
The First Lady helped create a notorious program that dumped poor patients on community hospitals, yet the national media ignore the story. Imagine if her husband were a Republican.
The University of Chicago Medical Center has received a good deal of justly opprobrious press over its policy of "redirecting" low-income patients to community hospitals while reserving its own beds for well-heeled patients requiring highly profitable procedures. Substantial coverage was given to a recent indictment of the program by the American College of Emergency Physicians. ACEP's president, Dr. Nick Jouriles, released a statementsuggesting that the initiative comes "dangerously close to ‘patient dumping,' a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act, and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick' wealthy patients over poor."
Oddly absent from most of the unflattering press coverage of UCMC's patient-dumping scheme is any mention of the role our new First Lady played in devising the program. A laudable exception has been the Chicago Sun-Times, which reported last August that "Michelle Obama -- currently on unpaid leave from her $317,000-a-year job as a vice president of the prestigious hospital -- helped create the program."
On the rare occasions when other "news" media have bothered to connect the Urban Health Initiative to its glamorous creator, they have attempted to whitewash this tawdry program. Typical of such disingenuous coverage was a story in the Washington Post, which described it as "an innovative program to steer the patients to existing neighborhood clinics."
But no amount of journalistic lipstick can hide the reality that Mrs. Obama's initiative is a patient-dumping scheme. Such "cherry-picking," as Dr. Jouriles accurately describes it, was, at one time, fairly common. Prestigious institutions like the University of Chicago Medical Center routinely "dumped" Medicaid, uninsured and other unprofitable patients on less mercenary community hospitals. Many patients suffered needlessly, and more than a few actually died, as the result of this practice. So, in 1986, President Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act (EMTALA) into law. EMTALA made such "redirection" illegal, but many high profile hospitals still chafed at being forced to treat poor patients. Enter Michelle Obama, UCMC's "Vice President for Community and External Affairs."
Mrs. Obama first hatched the UCMC program as the "South Side Health Collaborative," which featured a gang of "counselors" whose job it was to "advise" low-income patients that they would be better off at other hospitals and clinics. The program was so successful in getting rid of unwanted patients that she expanded it, gave it a new name, and hired none other than David Axelrod to sell the program to the public. According to the Sun-Times, "Obama's wife and Valerie Jarrett, an Obama friend and adviser who chairs the medical center's board, backed the Axelrod firm's hiring." Axelrod helped the future First Lady formulate a public relations campaign in which the "Urban Health Initiative" was represented as a boon to the community actuated by the purest of altruistic motives.
The resultant PR campaign was a study in Orwellian audacity. Chicago's inner city residents soon began hearing that UCMC's patient dumping program would "dramatically improve health care for thousands of South Side residents" and that the medical center was generously willing to provide "a ride on a shuttle bus to other centers." Likewise, the people who ran the community hospitals to which these unwanted patients were being shuttled began to read claims in local media to the effect that the Urban Health Initiative was good for them as well. Dr. Eric Whitaker, the Blagojevich crony who succeeded Mrs. Obama as Director of the program, repeatedly assured gullible reporters that the financial impact on these hospitals would be positive: "The initiative actually is improving their bottom lines." The CFOs of those hospitals were no doubt relieved to learn that treating Medicaid and uninsured patients is profitable.
But you just can't please some people. In one of the few frank passages of the Post article, we discover that many members of UCMC's medical staff believe the program is nothing more than an "attempt to ensure that the hospital retains only affluent patients with insurance." And another association of emergency physicians has joined ACEP in denouncing the Urban Health Initiative. The Chicago Tribune reports that Dr. Larry Weiss, president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine is unhappy about UCMC's failure to consult its own ER physicians before initiating the program: "Not including emergency-room physicians ... would be analogous to changing the way surgery is performed in an operating room without involving any surgeons." Dr. Whitaker assures us, however, that such critics are merely "opposed to change."
Presumably, he would be similarly dismissive of Angela Adams, who brought her son to the medical center's ER after his lip had been partially torn off by a pit bull. As the Tribune puts it, "Instead of rushing Dontae into surgery ... the hospital's staff began pressing her about insurance." Unfortunately for Dontae, he was covered by Medicaid. So, all he got from the UCMC emergency department was a shot, some antibiotics, and instructions to "follow up with Cook County." Angela had to take her son across town to John Stroger Hospital, where he was immediately admitted for reconstructive surgery. Like doctors Jouriles and Weiss, Angela is having trouble seeing the community benefit of the Urban Health Initiative.
Meanwhile, the program's parents, Michelle Obama and David Axelrod, have moved to Washington. As the First Lady and the President's closest advisor, they wield enormous power. Indeed, they may be the most powerful people in the Obama Administration, aside from the President himself. If these two characters were willing to betray their Chicago neighbors -- the South Side's most vulnerable citizens -- with a disgraceful program like the Urban Health Initiative, what sort of mischief will they devise for the hapless denizens of flyover country?
Come to think of it, isn't Obamacare being sold to us in pretty much the same way the Urban Health Initiative was sold to Chicago?
So here’s my problem. Michelle was earning considerably more than her husband was at the time, working at Director level in a very prestigious group of hospitals. From my ‘socialised health care’ perspective this means she is complicit in all the injustices of the US health Care system. There is a libertarian point that says- if a citizen in unwilling to participate and contribute to society, by creating wealth and bettering themselves, why should they receive the same health care as someone more productive? There are socialistic counters to this idea but the main one is that the cards are stacked against many underprivileged people. It is hard or impossible for them to better themselves. Morally, as they are excluded from society’s bounty, society owes them some health care, surely? Well, not according to Michelle. Her role was the DESIGN and IMPLEMENTATION of the system of Patient dumping – of course driven by profit . Michelle, this is far from nice!
3. BLATANT SNOWFLAKE PSI-OPS
See her speech (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/14/michelle-obama-speech-transcript-donald-trump) regarding ‘let girls learn’. It sounds so nice.
See, on Tuesday, at the White House, we celebrated the International Day of the Girl and Let Girls Learn, and it was a wonderful celebration. It was the last event that I’m going to be doing as first lady for Let Girls Learn. And I had the pleasure of spending hours talking to some of the most amazing young women you will ever meet, young girls here in the US and all around the world. And we talked about their hopes and their dreams. We talked about their aspirations. See, because many of these girls have faced unthinkable obstacles just to attend school, jeopardizing their personal safety, their freedom, risking the rejection of their families and communities.
So I thought it would be important to remind these young women how valuable and precious they are. I wanted them to understand that the measure of any society is how it treats its women and girls. And I told them that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and I told them that they should disregard anyone who demeans or devalues them, and that they should make their voices heard in the world. And I walked away feeling so inspired, just like I’m inspired by all the young people here – and I was so uplifted by these girls.
Dear Michelle, I want to live in a world where these issues are acknowledged by our leaders. We elect leaders who will actually produce policy to address these problems. NOT just evoke emotional language. I want to see you speaking in a more direct fashion about what is really happening in the world to little girls:
1. They are being trafficked into abuse and death at the hands of our politicians and their cronies
2. Our governments are destabilising countries, which impacts on the life opportunities of young girls.
3. Our allies are bombing innocent girls in large numbers for spurious reasons.
4. We remain silent when our allies practise sexual discrimination towards girls.
5. At home in the USA, young innocent girls are receiving poor health care and education because of the family background that they happen to have been born into.
6. Young girls who aspire to educate themselves are being saddled with unsustainable debt.
7. Young girls are being mistreated by the Police, often with racial motivation.
8. Young girls are succumbing to a plague of auto immune diseases, allergies, brain inflammation etc as a result of vaccination abuse.
9. Young girls,denied the opportunity to better themselves due to economic stagnation, are thereby coerced into a military career, and join the killing spree – yes , we are making them into murderers.
10. Young girls are being poisoned by their WATER
Michelle, before my eyes are going to get misty, you have a lot to say.