Churchill understood what Progressives want

“Wisdom”

It’s a heckuva busy day today with little time for posting, but I have to share this gem via Steven Hayward at Power Line. It’s an excerpt from a longer quote from Winston Churchill’s closing speech in the 1945 General Election, which the Conservatives sadly lost. Read these two paragraphs, and tell me if you don’t recognize the modern Democratic Party, at least by reflection:

Look how even today they hunger for controls of every kind, as if these were delectable foods instead of wartime inflictions and monstrosities. There is to be one State to which all are to be obedient in every act of their lives. The State is to be the arch-employer, the arch-planner, and arch-administrator and ruler and the arch-caucus-boss. . .

A Socialist State once thoroughly completed in all its details and its aspects—and that is what I am speaking of—could not afford to suffer opposition. . . Socialism is, in its essence, an attack not only upon British enterprise, but upon the right of the ordinary man or woman to breathe freely without having a harsh, clumsy, tyrannical hand clapped across their mouths and nostrils. . . Have we not heard Mr Herbert Morrison descant upon his plans to curtail Parliamentary procedure and pass laws simply by resolution of broad principle in the House of Commons, afterward to be left by Parliament to the executive and to the bureaucrats to elaborate and enforce by departmental regulations?

Churchill was of course criticizing the British Labour Party, which had been founded as an explicitly Socialist, albeit non-Marxist, party, but how well this describes President Obama and the dominant left wing of the Democratic Party! The worship of the administrative state, government by regulation and “boards of experts,” the inescapable, inexorable need to control everything — that bolded portion illustrates the progressive “theory of legislation” perfectly: pass a vaguely-worded bill, and let the unelected bureaucrats fill in the details with the full force of law. I’m surprised Goldberg didn’t quote this in “Liberal Fascism.”

Be sure to read the rest. While Hayward is thinking of Obamacare and the IRS scandal, I think Churchill’s quote reflects the heart of the professional Democratic Party in general.

Back to work…

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Barack Obama is a petty, spiteful man-child unworthy of the title “Chief of State”

Okay, okay, Barack. You don’t like those ex-colonialist British and you have emotional issues with the way they may have treated your grandfather in Kenya. I get it, I really do. You just don’t have it in you to overcome your childish bigotry.

But the British are among our closest allies, you are President of the United States of America, charged with handling our foreign relations, and this shames your office and insults those same allies:

President Obama’s delegation to the funeral of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher is drawing some flak in London.

Two former Republican secretaries of State — James Baker and George Shultz — will lead the U.S. delegation to the Thatcher funeral on Wednesday.

Some British press reports noted that the delegation does not include a former president or a member of the current Obama administration.

“Friends and allies of Baroness Thatcher expressed ‘surprise and disappointment’ last night as it emerged President Obama is not planning to send any serving member of his administration to her funeral,” reports the Daily Mail.

The Sun called it a “snub,” and said that “Downing Street is most angered by rejections from Obama, first lady Michelle and Vice President Joe Biden. And none of the four surviving ex-U.S. leaders — Jimmy Carter, George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr. — is coming either.

Give me a break. You mean you couldn’t ask George W. Bush and Bill Clinton to represent us? Seriously? What are ex-Presidents for?

Oh, and I just love the reason for not sending the First Lady or the Vice President (h/t Moe Lane):

‘This is a hugely significant week in terms of US domestic politics,’ a spokesman added.

He said that both the First Lady and the Vice President were ‘the President’s point people on gun control’, adding: ‘This is a week when there is a lot of movement on Capitol Hill on gun control issues.’

No. They didn’t. Why not just say “Michelle has to wash her hair and Joe’s already been to Britain this year?”

Margaret Thatcher was the second most important UK Head of Government in the 20th century. She saved Britain economically and stood side-by-side with us in the climactic phase of the Cold War and contributed mightily to the end of the Soviet Union. (1)  The British government has every right to be affronted. Mere decency and respect calls for a high-level delegation.

Instead they get the same level of official representation as was sent to the funeral of Hugo Chavez.

Some men grow into the office of President, rising to meet its challenges. Harry Truman, for example.

Barack Obama demeans and diminishes it.

via Legal Insurrection

Footnote:
(1) And maybe that’s another reason behind the slight: what she did would have upset Frank.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Welfare Handouts for Promoting Terrorism

Reblogged from International Liberty:

I don't think the federal government should be in the business of redistribution income. Simply stated, the welfare state has been a disaster for both taxpayers and recipients.

But our system, with whatever flaws it might have now or in the future, presumably will never be as crazy as the system in the United Kingdom.

A reader sent a story that blows my mind.

Read more… 363 more words

Every time I read about something like this --the UK welfare system handing out money and support to people whose goal it is to destroy the UK, as if it's their right-- I have to shake my head in wonder. This is another victory for cultural jihad.

Commenting on Margaret Thatcher’s death, President Narcissus can’t help himself.

“It’s all about the O”

I really think it’s impossible for Barack Obama to comment on any event without inserting himself:

Here in America, many of us will never forget her standing shoulder to shoulder with President Reagan, reminding the world that we are not simply carried along by the currents of history—we can shape them with moral conviction, unyielding courage and iron will.   Michelle and I send our thoughts to the Thatcher family and all the British people as we carry on the work to which she dedicated her life—free peoples standing together, determined to write our own destiny.

And what’s this “we,” kemosabe? Your beliefs and policies are about as far from Prime Minister Thatcher’s and President Reagan’s as it can be while staying on the same planet.

Seriously, I wonder if he laughed at the absurdity when he read that.

Nah. That would require a modicum of self-awareness.

via Stephen Greene

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Britain’s Green chickens are coming home to roost, as will ours, soon

Christopher Booker in last Saturday’s Telegraph: “It’s payback time…”

As the snow of the coldest March since 1963 continues to fall, we learn that we have barely 48 hours’ worth of stored gas left to keep us warm, and that the head of our second-largest electricity company, SSE, has warned that our generating capacity has fallen so low that we can expect power cuts to begin at any time. It seems the perfect storm is upon us.

The grotesque mishandling of Britain’s energy policy by the politicians of all parties, as they chase their childish chimeras of CO2-induced global warming and windmills, has been arguably the greatest act of political irresponsibility in our history.

Three more events last week brought home again just what a mad bubble of make-believe these people are living in. Under the EU’s Large Combustion Plants Directive, we lost two more major coal-fired power stations, Didcot A and Cockenzie, capable of contributing no less than a tenth to our average electricity demands. We saw a French state-owned company, EDF, being given planning permission to spend £14?billion on two new nuclear reactors in Somerset, but which it says it will only build, for completion in 10 years’ time, if it is guaranteed a subsidy that will double the price of its electricity. Then, hidden in the small print of the Budget, were new figures for the fast-escalating tax the Government introduces next week on every ton of CO2 emitted by fossil-fuel-powered stations, which will soon be adding billions of pounds more to our electricity bills every year.

Be sure to read the rest. Not only is the government in London heavily subsidizing uneconomic wind farms and granting needless subsidies in tribute to get nuclear plants built, but they’re doing all they can to drive coal plants out of business, even though coal plants are necessary as backup for those times when the wind doesn’t blow. Hence the warnings about blackouts in the dead of winter. Britain is looking at a new Dark Ages, one wholly of its own doing.

And before we cluck our tongues at our cousins’ folly, this is just the future Obama and the environmentalist movement would lead us to:

Booker is right that Britain’s energy policy is insanity. But what can we say about a nation –us– that sits atop almost unimaginably immense energy resources, enough to restore the cheap energy needed for prosperity and make us nearly energy independent, and yet fights tooth and nail  against developing it in the name of battling a problem that does not exist?

Madness!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Disgraceful: UK sailor humiliated by Virgin Atlantic

“Welcome to fight for us, not welcome to fly us.”

If this had happened in the US… Well, let just say it wouldn’t happen here:

For 15 years she has proudly served her country as a Royal Navy engineer, risking her life in Afghanistan when she fought against the Taliban.

But far from showing Nicky Howse the respect she deserved as she flew back to her latest posting, Virgin Atlantic staff chose to humiliate her – by demanding that she remove her uniform because it was ‘offensive’.

They warned the 32-year-old helicopter technician she would not be allowed to fly unless she took off her combat fatigues and wore a sleep suit instead.

Petty Officer Howse is on a three-month deployment with a helicopter unit in the US, but had been home on compassionate leave to attend her grandfather’s funeral. She had worn her uniform without any problems on a Virgin flight from America to Britain the week before.

The incident happened as she waited for her return flight to Los Angeles from Heathrow on Monday.

She was confronted by a G4S security guard and Virgin Atlantic staff, who ordered her to change into pyjamas before boarding the jet.

They told her – wrongly – that it was the company’s policy not to allow military personnel to travel in uniform.

As Petty Officer Howse herself put it:

‘To clarify, a British airline who claims to be Britain’s flag carrier won’t allow a member of Britain’s armed forces to travel on their airline in uniform.’ Armed Forces rules state that a serviceman or woman can wear their uniforms voluntarily from their ‘residence to place of duty, irrespective of whether they travel by public or private transport, or on foot.’

That’s a fine “thank you for your service,” isn’t it?

A commenter at the Daily Mail site pointed out that G4S is the same firm that couldn’t properly handle security for the recent Olympics, necessitating the deployment of the British Army. Maybe their customers should reconsider hiring the services of such a bunch of incompetents.

Virgin has admitted the error and apologized to Petty Officer Howse. They ought to comp her a couple of free flights, too, while explaining to their staff that the British military is not the enemy.

Read the rest for further examples of the ill treatment of men and women who wear the Queen’s uniform. Something is very wrong in the UK, these days.

via ST’s Hot Headlines

Islamic terror plot foiled in UK

Their hero, Anwar al-Awlaki

We’d like to pretend the war with Muslims waging “jihad fi sabil Allah” is over, but they just won’t let us:

Four Islamic extremists admitted plotting a terrorist attack on British soil armed with guns and home-made bombs.

The men were caught after in a massive multi-million pound surveillance operation by police and the security services.

Hidden bugs recorded them discussing methods, materials and targets for a terrorist attack, including using improvised explosive devices.

They downloaded illicit online terrorist instructions, purchased survival equipment and collected thousands of pounds to fund the plot.

Investigators looked on as they organised and undertook physical training and prepared to send others to Al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan.

But they were arrested at their homes in Luton, Bedfordshire, following a huge operation by the police and the security services.

The men involved were Zahid Iqbal, 31, Mohammed Sharfaraz Ahmed, 25, Umar Arshad, 24, and Syed Farhan Hussain, 21.

The four were planning an attack they hoped would produce more casualties than the 7/7/05 attacks in London and create another “memorable date.” Fortunately, UK security services noted their suspicious activities and rounded them up before they could put their murderous act of devotion into operation.

Call it a needed reminder that they’re still trying to kill us.

via ST’s Hot Headlines

European Union or EUSSR? Brussels demands power to regulate press, fire journalists

“Enemy of the State”

If anyone had any notion that the European Union was anything but a bureaucratic dictatorship, this should open their eyes:

A European Union report has urged tight press regulation and demanded that Brussels officials are given control of national media supervisors with new powers to enforce fines or the sacking of journalists.

The “high level” recommendations that will be used to draft future EU legislation also attack David Cameron for failing to automatically implement proposals by the Lord Justice Leveson inquiry for a state regulation of British press.

A “high level” EU panel, that includes Latvia’s former president and a former German justice minister, was ordered by Neelie Kroes, European Commission vice-president, last year to report on “media freedom and pluralism”. It has concluded that it is time to introduce new rules to rein in the press.

“All EU countries should have independent media councils,” the report concluded.

“Media councils should have real enforcement powers, such as the imposition of fines, orders for printed or broadcast apologies, or removal of journalistic status.”

As well as setting up state regulators with draconian powers, the panel also recommended that the European Commission be placed in overall control in order to ensure that the new watchdogs do not breach EU laws.

(Emphases added)

I’m sure these new powers, if granted, will be used only for the common good, to ensure fair, sensitive journalism — as determined by a bunch of Eurocrats.

The danger of this is obvious: the power to fine or fire is the power to dictate, and the only reporters to retain their jobs will be those who say things pleasing to the mandarins in Brussels. It would be the death knell of free speech in Europe, for free speech is meaningless if it doesn’t include the right to say things that make the powerful uncomfortable, or even simply to offend. A free, unfettered press is essential to a democratic society, and if the press is fettered, so is the citizen, who becomes a subject. The society is no longer free.

The article points out that these proposed regulations are aimed largely at the British press, which has a large Euro-skeptic element and regularly ticks off the European Union elite.  Quite unsurprisingly, then, the Brussels initiative has set up howls of outrage in Britain, from whom we inherited our traditions of free speech and press freedom. With Prime Minister Cameron promising a referendum on a new arrangement, one can only hope the majority of Britons will see the danger of staying a part of this “brave new Euro-world” and vote to get the hell out.

Indeed, they may already ready be headed for the door.

PS: This article reminds me yet again how rare, fragile, and precious our traditions of free speech –the ability to speak one’s mind to the powerful without fear of reprisal– really are. In Europe, where on the Continent the governing tradition is top-down, the natural reaction of the government is to suppress annoying speech. (And in America, we see twitches of that from the Left.) Even in Australia, the people of which are our close political cousins, there is no recognized natural right of free speech. It is a right that we must not only assert and defend, but actively exercise, especially when it itself is under threat.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Olga from Greece Has a Lithuanian Soulmate Mooching in the United Kingdom

Reblogged from International Liberty:

• 

The welfare state creates some amazingly pathetic and disgusting individuals.

• In the battle of the bums, we've had the spectacle of "Diaper Man" vs "Footless Hans."
• In the contest for most despicable moocher, we have the "Florida Pedophiles" vs the "Gimme Babymaker."
• And the fight for most pathetic victim of dependency features the "

Read more… 937 more words

And if you don't believe it can happen here, click the link, read, and get angry.

More Stomach-Turning Horror Stories from the UK Government-Run Healthcare System

Reblogged from International Liberty:

• 

During the Obamacare debate, Paul Krugman told us we could ignore stories about what was happening across the ocean, writing that “In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false.”

Every so often, I wonder how Krugman would define a "scare story." How about starving babies to death, as…

Read more… 685 more words

If you want to see what's in store for us under Obamacare, just look across the Atlantic.

Quote of the Day: “the English always say it better” edition

On the windfarm debacle in the UK and resulting job losses (and soon to be coming to the US!):

Seriously, honestly, I don’t know how these people can actually say such things without cracks in the earth opening, clawed hands appearing, and their being dragged down to the hottest corner of hell, there to have their entrails spooled on a winding wheel while crows peck out their eyes.

James Delingpole, of course. Be sure to read the rest.

PS: Yes, the blog holiday is over. You lucky people.

Oh, gosh. It seems “global warming” stopped about 16 years ago. UPDATED: Met Office replies

Now there’s an “inconvenient truth” for the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming. And the source is none other than the UK’s Met Office, a veritable temple of the faith:

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

Be sure to click through for the rest of the article and the Chart of Doom.

You won’t be shocked to learn the Met Office released this data without any publicity — not surprising since it blows a hole in their precious theory theology big enough to drive a 16-wheeler through. Later in the article it’s observed that the current “plateau” period has been about as long as the warming trend that preceded it. A little bit of reading and some thought based on observable evidence (and not computer models)  might lead one to think this is part of a natural cycle, not some sign that man has angered Gaea and will be punished for it.

That’s the theory I prefer, at any rate, and I think it’s more empirical than anything the Met Office, the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, James Hansen, Al Gore, and the rest of the alarmist, Green Statist, rent-seeking cult has ever produced.

This will not stop them, of course, as Jones’ bleatings and pleadings in the article show, even while he admits they don’t know enough about natural cycles. Well, then doesn’t that make their oracles –their computer models– worthless?

Not to the true climate alarmist. They’ll just wait a little for the fuss to die down, then go back to selling their predictions of doom and claiming mathematical proof in the hope of convincing a few more uncritical suckers.

And we’ll be waiting for them.

RELATED: More from Pirate’s Cove.

UPDATE: The Met Office has replied, attacking the author and his article.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Desperately seeking doctors: your future under Obamacare

However much apologists for Obamacare try to deny it, the rationing of care is inevitable as the government tries to control costs by controlling what care one can receive — deciding whether the patient truly needs it or if it’s worthwhile at all to administer it. As usual, Britain, which has had the single-payer National Health Service for roughly 60 years, shows us what lies in our future if Obamacare isn’t repealed: sick people begging for private care:

GPs believe the numbers of patients asking about paying for operations including cataract removal and joint replacements has increased markedly in the last year, according to a poll.

Dr Clare Gerada, chairman of the Royal College of GPs, said it was “incontrovertible” that increased NHS rationing was behind the increase in going private, a trend she described as “very sad”.

The poll, carried out by ComRes for the firm BMI Healthcare, found that 70 per cent of GPs are now unable to refer a patient for further treatment on the NHS at least once a month because they do not qualify under local criteria.

Primary care trusts (PCTs) have increasingly been restricting access to treatments including cataract removals, hernia operations and hip and knee replacements, by raising the threshold of how ill or disabled a patient has to be.

(…)

The principal reason behind increased interest in “self-pay” healthcare is treatments no longer being available on the NHS, according to the poll, with 66 per cent of GPs citing this.

(Emphasis added)

It may be “sad,” per Dr. Gerada, but it’s also the inevitable result of trying to impose top-down “command economics” on what should be a free market for goods and services and to treat a commodity, medical care, as a natural right. Mandated cost-controls, whether done directly  through price schedules or indirectly through rationing, simply don’t work: costs still go up (they’re just hidden from sight) and require further controls, and the quality of service declines — or vanishes altogether, as this article shows.

And unless Obamacare is repealed in the next few years, we’re going to be joining our British cousins in the hunt for private doctors — if any can be found.

via Breitbart

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Great moments in Smart Power diplomacy: slapping your allies edition

Among the many embarrassing moments for the Obama administration (1) at the recent Summit of the Americas, the real standout has to be when the President of the United States showed utter, blithering ignorance of geography while at the same time sticking a shiv into one of our closest, oldest allies.

At a press conference, when asked about Argentine claims (2) to the Falkland Islands (part of the UK for nearly 200 years), our worldly-wise president tried to show how multicultural he is by referring to the islands by their Spanish name, “Las Malvinas.”

Except, he couldn’t keep it straight, calling them instead “The Maldives,” a group of islands in the Indian Ocean 8,000 miles away.

D’oh!

Okay, okay. So it’s a relatively petty point, and he was without his binky teleprompter. But we’ve been told time and again what a brilliant man he is, so don’t you think he could keep the names straight in a dispute involving an ally and an important regional actor? One that may break out in war?  The press would have shown Bush no mercy, so, all’s fair. Obama owns this egg-on-the-face moment.

But, much more important than his latest impression of Norm Crosby, Obama’s proclamation of neutrality in the Falklands dispute was yet another slap in the face of one of our most important and trusted allies. As UK journalist Toby Harnden wrote:

But the bigger issue is that the Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory. This time 30 years ago, a British task force was en route to retake the islands after they had been invaded by Argentina. The death toll of that war included 255 British troops.

(…)

To spell it out: Obama is “neutral” over the sovereignty of islands that British troops, with American support, fought and died for at a time when British troops are fighting and dying alongside their American comrades in Afghanistan.

Not only that, Obama thinks that the term “Malvinas” is just as valid as the correct name on all the maps: the Falklands. Except that he cannot read his briefing notes carefully enough even to get the incorrect name right, mixing up the Malvinas with the Maldives.

What a way to treat the foremost ally of the United States.

The British also supported us in both Gulf Wars and have been stalwarts in the fight against al Qaeda globally. Given the choice between supporting Her Majesty’s Government in defense in the right of Falklanders to self-determination, on the one hand, and giving de facto support to the gangster-government of Argentine president Cristina Kirchner on the other, well, there is no choice, and the Obama-Clinton “evenhanded neutrality” is a disgrace.

Hell of a way to treat an ally, indeed.

LINKS: More from Fausta; Nile Gardiner wonders (again) if this is the thanks Britain gets. He also argues that Secretary Clinton is becoming an embarrassment. (“Becoming,” Nile? Try the past tense.) The Diplomad recounts earlier sorry moments in Obama’s Latin American diplomacy and calls this latest summit “a disaster.”

Footnotes:
(1) The Secretary of State partying the night away. Secret Service Agents Gone Wild.
(2) Which are about as legitimate as my claim to the throne of the Tsars.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Sentenced to death for being old

Your ObamaCare health consultant

One of the ways socialized medicine controls cost is to ration care, denying treatment when it’s determined not to be “cost-effective.” Particularly vulnerable are the elderly, who tend to need medical services the most but, according to some people (1) with with connections to the president, really haven’t got much time left, anyway, so care given to them would be better-directed toward those with more to contribute to society.

If you want to see how that works out in practice, just look to the UK, where they’ve had socialized medicine under the NHS since the 1940s.

God help you if you grow old, there:

When Kenneth Warden was diagnosed with terminal bladder cancer, his hospital consultant sent him home to die, ruling that at 78 he was too old to treat.

Even the palliative surgery or chemotherapy that could have eased his distressing symptoms were declared off-limits because of his age.

His distraught daughter Michele Halligan accepted the sad prognosis but was determined her father would spend his last months in comfort. So she paid for him to seen privately by a second doctor to discover what could be done to ease his symptoms.

Thanks to her tenacity, Kenneth got the drugs and surgery he needed — and as a result his cancer was actually cured. Four years on, he is a sprightly 82-year-old who works out at the gym, drives a sports car and competes in a rowing team.

‘You could call his recovery amazing,’ says Michele, 51. ‘It is certainly a gift. But the fact is that he was written off because of his age. He was left to suffer so much, and so unnecessarily.’

There’s much more to read in the article, the thrust of which is about age discrimination. It’s estimated that around 14,000 elderly Britons die because they are denied the care they need because their NHS doctor has decided they’re too old to undergo the therapy. And yet, as the case of Mr. Warden and others show, advances in geriatric medicine and surgery have greatly increased the chances of such treatment succeeding.

Left unspoken in the article is the origin of this discrimination against the elderly: the bureaucratic pressure to cut costs that in turn leads to decisions on who’s worth the expense of treating — and who isn’t.

In other words, “death panels.” And yet they called Sarah Palin an idiot and even told her to “leave the room.”

Seems to me she just looked across the Atlantic and saw the future.

via Peter Robinson at Ricochet

Footnote:
(1) Bioethicists, again. These people are starting to scare me.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

“Your medical needs offend the Earth. Go away!”

An elderly grandmother in the UK has been told by her NHS (1) clinic to find another doctor, because the “carbon footprint” of her two-mile round-trip is too big:

Avril Mulcahy, 83, was told to address the “green travelling issues” over her journeys from her home in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, to the West Road Surgery. The surgery wrote to Mrs Mulcahy, telling her to register with a new GP within 28 days.

The letter said: “Our greatest concern is for your health and convenience but also taking into consideration green travelling issues. Re: Carbon footprints and winter weather conditions, we feel it would be advisable for patients to register at surgeries nearer to where they live.

“We would be very grateful if you could make the necessary arrangements to re-register at another practice.”

Mrs Mulcahy, a grandmother, believes the decision was made because she complained about a doctor.

So, we either have the apotheosis of Green Statism, marrying government control of personal medical decisions to the dogma of the Cult of Gaea, or they came up with a truly lame way to get rid of a possibly troublesome patient.

Either way, this stinks.

For what it’s worth, my guess is that the latter is true: For whatever reason, legitimate or not, Mulcahy complained about a doctor. Rather than deal with the complaint in a professional manner, the surgery acted like petty tinpot gods and invented an excuse straight out of the Book of Gore to be rid of her.

But, whichever is true, Mulcahy’s case is an illustration of the dystopia created when we let bureaucracy turn us into dependent children. Mulcahy and other NHS patients don’t pay their doctors, the government does. Thus they are not really accountable to their patients, but to those higher in the bureaucracy. We, on the other hand, are faceless proles whose needs (2) are either to be sacrificed to religion ideology or who simply are sent away when we are too much of a bother.

And with the Left’s devotion here to both single-payer health care and “fighting climate change” (3), we surely have much the same to look forward to if ObamaCare isn’t defeated.

Footnotes:
(1) “National Health Service,” the UK’s state-run single-payer system, something beloved and admired by key Obama appointees.
(2) Having taken care of elderly parents, I know how important it is for them to see the doctor or doctors they like and trust. This isn’t just a matter of convenience, but a need for good care.
(3) Or whatever they want to call it this week.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

I am so looking forward to government care in my old age. Aren’t you?

I mean, it’s working so well in Britain:

More than half care home residents denied basic care, unpublished data shows

More than half of elderly and disabled people in care homes are being denied basic health services while staff are failing to to do enough to preserve their dignity, according to an official review.

Some older people routinely have to wait up to three months for formal checks for painful conditions such as bed sores, according to figures from the health care watchdog.

A quarter were not given a choice of male or female staff to help them use the lavatory and more than a third of care homes surveyed admitted delays in getting medication to residents.

Campaigners blamed NHS bureaucrats showing a “lack of interest” and failing to provide expert assessments for conditions as basic as incontinence.

(…)

Fresh evidence of the failings in the system was detailed as a raft of previously unpublished data gathered by the health care regulator the Care Quality Commission (CQC) was released.

It was drawn from the first ever nationwide review of how the needs of needs of care home residents across England are met.

The CQC report discloses that people suffering from incontinence have to wait more than two weeks for an assessment of their condition in almost 40 per cent of homes for the elderly surveyed.

But a separate detailed analysis of the CQC data carried out by the British Geriatrics Society, also found that more than 40 per cent specialist providers set themselves a target as long as 90 days to carry out such assessments.

Such delays have led to elderly people being denied the treatment they need or forced to wear incontinence clothing when they do not need it.

Even worse, a quarter of the old folks’ homes surveyed reported that staff had little-to-no idea of what their residents’ care needs are.

Not surprisingly, over a thousand of the elderly descended on Parliament to protest their miserable care and demand the government do something. But therein lies the problem: government did do something and, as government often does when it replaces the private sector and tries to do those things it was never meant to do, it created a mess. Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), so admired by President Obama’s now-departed CMS head Donald Berwick, is forced to ration care to control costs — and that apparently includes care for the aged. As the head of the UK Geriatrics Society said:

“What it shows is that there is a massive disconnect between what the NHS aspires to and what it actually delivers to people in care homes and they are the most vulnerable group of people”

While nursing-home care for the elderly isn’t yet part of ObamaCare (1), we can expect it will be someday as the federal bureaucracy moves to take over all aspects of health care.

And we can expect that same “massive disconnect,” too.

via Via Meadia

Footnote:
(1) At least, not that I know of. But then, nobody really knows what’s in the PPACA, do they?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

The real legacy of Margaret Thatcher

With the release of “The Iron Lady,” there’s been a renewed interest in the person and political career of Margaret Thatcher, in my opinion the second-greatest (1) British Prime Minister of the 20th century. The film has received mixed reviews (also) generally crediting Meryl Streep for a great performance that lifted a problematic script. I haven’t seen the film, myself, so can’t comment on how accurate it is.

The Heritage Foundation, however, was concerned that the film would underplay the great things Thatcher accomplished in Britain by resolutely applying conservative principles. So, they produced this short video reminding us of the Iron Lady’s legacy:

Footnote:
(1) Winston Churchill will always be the greatest. Always.

PS: Sorry about the non-posting this weekend, folks. The NFL playoffs took priority. How ’bout them 49ers?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Live in the UK and forget to get someone a Christmas gift?

No problem! Waterstone’s has the solution for you, a book it proclaimed to be the “perfect present.”

Mein Kampf:

Staff at Waterstone’s in Huddersfield used a festive point-of-sale sticker to promote the book as “the perfect present” with an accompanying personal recommendation message by a staff member trumpeting the book as “an essential read for anyone”.

Town-centre stores in Manchester, Liverpool and Cheshire have been displaying front covers of multiple copies of the book, a sales technique designed to attract the attention of shoppers.

The trend was first spotted by Jewish travelling salesman Jonathan Levine, 44, from north Manchester. He has now received an apology from Waterstone’s, after he complained.

Mr Levine said: “I would be most obliged if Waterstone’s would explain what lies behind the apparent zeal on their part to promote this disgusting work. When challenging one of the staff in Manchester’s Deansgate branch, I was told that it was ‘a Christmas bestseller which sold really well’. A dubious justification indeed for selling this hateful work.”

I can imagine it sold well during the holidays, given Britain’s large and growing jihadist population and popularity of the book and its author around the Muslim world, for example in Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, and Bangladesh. I suppose we should be grateful Waterstone’s didn’t market it for Hanukkah.

What genius thought this was a bright idea, and didn’t any of the store personnel question it?

via Philip Klein

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Such classy people — not

As part of yesterday’s observance of the tenth anniversary of the September 11th atrocities, the US Embassy in London held its own services. Also present were a group of Muslims who held their own commemoration:

A small group of Islamist demonstrators staged a protest outside the US embassy in London Sunday during a ceremony to mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Around 50 people brandished anti-US banners, chanted slogans and burnt a small piece of paper with a picture of the US flag on it, an AFP journalist at the scene said.

Britain’s Press Association news agency reported that the protesters were from a group called Muslims Against Crusades.

They were there to disrupt a moment of silence scheduled for the time that the first plane struck the World Trade Center. When these religious fascists started their fire, the police formed a line to keep them away. Regrettably, no police dogs were loosed on these jerks.

Such classy people.

via Big Government

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)