The “shock” moment of the third Democrat presidential debate came from socialist-Beto O'Rourke, who ranted about the dangers of certain semiautomatic rifles before thundering, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15!” Leftists have become more candid in recent years about their desire to confiscate legally purchased rifles with certain cosmetic features, though they usually couch that gun grab in terms of a “buyback.” How the government would buy back something it never sold in the first place is unclear except by defining it as confiscation. So should we thank socialist-Beto for his honesty?

On the one hand, this is a loudmouth, no-shot candidate desperately seeking attention with a confiscation demand he’s made more than once. On the other hand, his repeated push could be the strategic play of the Democrat National Committee to float an unpopular proposal through a bottom-tier candidate to bring in the party’s collective constituencies to the ultimate nominee’s fold. Barack scumbag/liar-nObama, scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton, and others have similarly spoken of confiscation in the past.

According to National Review, “Briscoe Cain, who represents the Houston area in the Texas state legislature, wrote ‘my AR is ready for you Robert Francis’ in a since deleted tweet sent Thursday night” in rebuttal to O'Rourke’s comments. socialist-Beto whined about that being “a death threat,” providing an example of why Cain “shouldn’t own an AR-15 — and neither should anyone else.”

Few are willing to say this, but what was socialist-Beto’s threat about confiscation except a death threat? What if American Patriots refuse to yield their legally purchased, Second Amendment-protected firearms to heavily armed government agents who knock down their doors to take them? Will those government agents say, “Ok, never mind; have a nice day”? Or will there be massive bloodshed?

And just like that, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15!” became the Republicans’ most effective option for a campaign ad.

As for the rest of the Democrat debate, it was pretty standard fare. Frontrunners loose lips liar-Joe Biden, Elizabeth dinky-Warren, and commie-Bernie Sanders argued over how far left the party should go on Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and other leftist fever dreams. Meanwhile, lowlife-Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, scumbag-Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang, Julián Castro, and socialist-O'Rourke vied to achieve some sort of breakout moment, primarily by offering more “free” stuff, sanctimoniously lecturing about how awful America is, or by saying outrageous things about President Donald Trump (have you heard he’s a “racist”?).

For choice quotes, see our Short Cuts. But we’ll highlight a final one here: “Anybody that does what [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro does is a vicious tyrant,” insisted Sanders, who also protested, “In terms of democratic socialism, to equate what goes on in Venezuela with what I believe is extremely unfair.” His protests notwithstanding, it’s not unfair. commie-Sanders’s socialist salesmanship and his love affairs with China and the Soviet Union prove it. But you know what happened in Maduro’s socialist paradise of Venezuela? Gun confiscation.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65459?mailing_id=4528&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4528&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

President Trump was right to cancel a “secret” meeting with leaders of the Taliban and the Afghan government following two bomb attacks by the terrorist group that killed 10 civilians, an American soldier and a Romanian service member in heavily fortified Kabul.

The president is eager to fulfill a desire to withdraw remaining American forces in what has been one of America’s longest wars. Who isn’t?

Unfortunately, terrorism does not fall under a single umbrella. It is not just al-Qaida, though all Islamist terrorist groups appear to have the same objective: Kill Americans, weaken the United States, subjugate women, eliminate Israel and impose its version of Sharia law across the globe.

The prospect of a peace agreement would normally be cause for celebration, except in this case U.S. negotiators don’t appear to know who and what they are dealing with. As he ended American involvement in the Vietnam War with the Paris Peace Accords, President Nixon declared “peace with honor.” It wasn’t long before the communist North’s takeover of South Vietnam and their murder of “collaborators.”

A premature U.S. pullout from Afghanistan will fulfill the late Osama bin Laden’s prophecy, which he based on America’s Vietnam experience, that the U.S. has no staying power and all the terrorists have to do is wait us out.

A Taliban spokesman confirmed this in a statement to the London Times, declaring the group’s unwillingness to even agree to a cease fire, much less a peace deal. “It is not possible for us,” he said. “We will fight. We have fought for 18 years and we will fight for a hundred years. We will continue our ‘jihad.’”

There is something else the secular West doesn’t, or worse, refuses to understand. As with some liberal Western leaders who thought promises from communists could be believed, radical Islamists are taught to lie to “infidels,” if it advances the cause of Islam.

From Raymond Ibrahim, writing for Middle East Forum, the Philadelphia-based conservative think tank, “According to Sharia (law), in certain situations, deception — also known as ‘taqiyya,’ based on Quranic terminology — is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory. For instance, contrary to early Christian history, Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being put to death are not only permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatised, but many jurists have decreed that, according to Quran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie in such instances.”

The Taliban leadership can be counted on to say to the West whatever it takes to regain power and to possibly again create a haven for terrorists to plot their next attack on the United States.

The West should never compromise when it comes to the Taliban’s attitude toward women and its desire to return to the days of their complete subjugation to men. Some years ago I met with a group of Afghan women in New York, who had managed to escape their country when the Taliban ruled. They included teachers, lawyers and businesswomen. These women told horrific stories of life under the Taliban. They were forced to paint over the windows of their homes, forbidden to leave home unless accompanied by a male relative, required to wear burqas in public and should they take a bus anywhere, a male relative had to take the coin from their hands and deposit it in the collection box.

There is no reform movement among the Taliban, so why doubt the group will return to practicing their interpretation of Islamic law should they have the opportunity?

One hopes the U.S. will not consider anything resembling unilateral withdrawal, which is not the way to end a war; victory is.

The “war on terrorism” is unique because it is based on religious extremism and its accompanying ideology and a willingness — even eagerness — to die for their cause and their god. Should a peace deal eventually be reached without protections that preserve U.S. interests (and American lives), it will only ensure more trouble for the years ahead.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/65354?mailing_id=4521&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4521&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Variety reported last week, “Facebook faces another antitrust investigation, with the New York State Attorney General announcing Friday that a coalition of nine AGs has launched an investigation into the social-media giant for potential antitrust violations.”

And The Washington Post reports this week, “Attorneys general for 50 U.S. states and territories on Monday officially announced an antitrust investigation of Google, embarking on a wide-ranging review of a tech giant that Democrats and Republicans said may threaten competition, consumers and the continued growth of the web.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton explained that Google “dominates all aspects of advertising on the Internet and searching on the Internet.”

Back in January, Attorney General William Barr expressed concerns over Big Tech’s rapid growth when he told lawmakers, “I don’t think big is necessarily bad, but I think a lot of people wonder how such huge behemoths that now exist in Silicon Valley have taken shape under the nose of the antitrust enforcers. You can win that place in the marketplace without violating the antitrust laws, but I want to find out more about that dynamic.” Barr and state attorneys general are seeking to answer these questions.

Criticism of Big Tech has become a uniquely bipartisan issue in this era of heightened partisanship. However, the reasoning behind that criticism is not uniform. Conservatives accuse Big Tech of free-speech infringement specifically related to the censorship practices against conservative social-media figures. Leftists like anti-corporate socialist Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren (D-MA), on the other hand, call for tech giants like Facebook, Amazon, and Google to be broken up simply for being too big.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65358?mailing_id=4521&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4521&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

After his conviction, Polanski fled to Europe, where he has eluded extradition for the last 40 years. He was finally ousted from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences … in 2018. But evidently, the Me Too movement still hasn’t made the leap across the Pond.

Over the weekend, Polanski won the Grand Jury Prize (second place) at the Venice Film Festival for directing “An Officer and a Spy.” Argentine director Lucrecia Martel, who chaired the jury judging the films, straddled the fence, saying, “I will not congratulate him, but I think it is correct that his movie is here at this festival.” Polanski sent his wife to collect the award, opting to stay out of Italy to avoid extradition.

Speaking of Me Too and Hollywood-type hypocrites, Margaret Atwood has finally authored the long-awaited sequel to the 1984 book The Handmaid’s Tale, which has been turned into a feminist battle cry of a TV show in recent years. (Long story short, it’s the dystopian fictional tale of women turned into sex slaves by “Christian” masters. It regained popularity among feminists upon Donald Trump’s election, and, in truth, is nothing more than a screed for abortion on demand.) The Testaments will be released today.

We find these two stories related because of one simple factor: Hollywood is full of men mistreating, profiling, objectivizing, and sexually abusing women. It’s true, there are individual cases of Christian men (pastors, priests, etc.) committing such abuse — Christians are also sinful humans in need of a Savior. But there is no Christian denomination or sect that is remotely promoting a system of government and social structure like Atwood’s scurrilous characterization. Meanwhile, Hollywood profits from and rewards promiscuously abusive behavior. It’s a celebrated way of life, shunned only when it becomes a bit too grotesque to sweep under the run. And even then, if you have the right connections are make a movie people actually like, you’ll still receive an award.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65350?mailing_id=4521&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4521&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Companies do have a responsibility to produce and sell safe products. They also must respond to pubic demand, particularly if they want consumers to buy their products and services. In recent years, however, corporations, led by “woke” CEOs or left-of-center shareholder activists, have been wading into the political fray.

Companies used to stay out of political discourse as a matter of policy. Now, companies that try to stay silent on controversial issues can also face the wrath of the Left. Those that want to avoid embarrassing press coverage, boycotts, and picket lines often overcompensate to please what is ultimately a minority of citizens.

For instance, it wasn’t enough for Walmart to stop selling ammunition (once current inventory is exhausted, of course). Company CEO Doug McMillon also took the opportunity to “encourage our nation’s leaders to move forward and strengthen background checks and to remove weapons from those who have been determined to pose an imminent danger.” Imagine a country where we take our guidance on Second Amendment issues from our largest consumer retailer.

Walmart’s reliance on cheap Chinese products has driven many smaller retailers out of business over the years. It keeps a vast number of its employees part-time so it does not have to pay their insurance benefits. It was this business model that for years made Walmart the bane of the Left. Or at least that was the excuse at the time. Now, the Left loves Walmart, just like it loves any company that will push a “woke” agenda.

Whether it be stopping the sales of firearms, shielding illegal immigrants from the law, or promoting social justice, companies are now adding their voice to the public discourse. The problem is that this is the voice of the Left. By leaning on these companies, the Left is using commerce itself as another means of pushing its agenda. Sometimes this is done through the threat of public action, sometimes because activist leftists have wormed their way onto corporate boards and can influence decisions.

The American public does not need the corporate sector to be the voice of the people. People are perfectly capable of voting for their elected leaders at the ballot box. And we can vote for the companies we choose to support by purchasing their products. In short, people can make up their own minds. Leftists don’t like that, which is why they’re so interested in strong-arming American business. Not because they are concerned about the economy, but because they see it as another lever of power with which to enact their socialist agenda.

Companies that decide to go “woke” are merely following a trend. If CEOs choose to take their organizations into the political fray, then they will find themselves as political players. Being a political player may make a company popular with certain segments of society, but it will no longer be neutral in the eyes of the public. And what happens when the political winds shift, as they always do? What will be more important then, popularity with a base of leftist elites or staying in business?  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65356?mailing_id=4521&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4521&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

The trouble is, the story is not true, as even The New York Times observed. There was a high-level U.S. source within the Kremlin, and the CIA did work to extract him over increasing fears that the Russians would find out his identity. However, the allegation that Trump’s supposed mishandling of classified intelligence was what motivated the CIA to act is flat out wrong.

And the CIA did something it rarely does — issue a public denial of the CNN report. CIA Director of Public Affairs Brittany Bramell stated, “Misguided speculation that the president’s handling of our nation’s most sensitive intelligence — which he has access to each and every day — drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate.”

Former CIA Director and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also weighed in: “The reporting is materially inaccurate. And you should know, as a former CIA director, I don’t talk about things like this very often — it is only the occasions that I think put people at risk, when the reporting is so egregious as to create enormous risks to the United States of America, that I even comment the way I just did.” He added, “I won’t say anything more about it. Suffice to say that the reporting there is factually wrong.”

A source familiar with the situation noted, “In their fervor to blame President Trump for mishandling classified information, CNN potentially risked lives. They had multiple on-the-record quotes from administration officials telling them. Their story was not only wrong, but irresponsible and dangerous, and CNN decided to run with it anyway.”

In fact, the real culprit in this whole exposure case ironically is the mainstream media. As the Times reports, “Former intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. Trump directly endangered the source, and other current American officials insisted that media scrutiny of the agency’s sources alone was the impetus for the extraction.” So, CNN is blaming Trump for an action the network is guilt of.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65399?mailing_id=4523&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4523&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

This was not just an attack against America. It was an attack against the unalienable rights of all people to “life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

We invite you to join us as we offer our prayers for the families of the WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville victims, and for our Armed Forces who are now serving on the front lines in the Long War to contain Islamic terrorism. Despite paying a heavy price for appeasement of jihadi terrorists under the last administration, under the current one there is cause for renewed hope of success against this lethal threat.

From 9/11 to this date, the U.S. has thwarted well over 100 planned Islamist attacks on our nation, and we must remain vigilant to avoid another catastrophic attack on our homeland. But the Islamist threat abroad continues to add attacks to its indiscriminate and murderous record.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65379?mailing_id=4523&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4523&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

First of all, it needs to be said that the talks with the Taliban were not President Donald Trump’s idea. Barack scumbag/liar-nObama started them, and during the scumbag/liar-nObama administration, those talks led to the release of the “Taliban Dream Team” in exchange for a deserter. They were a bad idea then, and still are a bad idea now. However, at this point, continuing the talks was an understandable bad idea prior to the Taliban admitting they were carrying out car bombings and other attacks to gain leverage.

Why? Because, at this point, America has four options in Afghanistan:

• Win the war by a massive surge of forces into the country where 2,296 American troops have died in a war fought for close to 18 years now (as of this coming October 7)

• Muddle along as we are now, leaving the fight to Special Operations Command

• Negotiate a deal of some sort

• Lose by just pulling out

Until the cancellation of the talks, America was doing a combination of options two and three. America arguably lost the chance to carry out option one when scumbag/liar-nObama announced a timetable-based strategy in Afghanistan back in 2009, but that was set up by earlier mistakes by George W. Bush, notably the failure to expand America’s military in the aftermath of 9/11.

While his immediate actions in the wake of the unprovoked attacks made America safer, the failure to aggressively defend those actions in the wake of lies peddled by the Leftmedia ranks as an immense blunder. Had Bush shown a quarter of the fight in defending the Long War against those lies that Trump has shown with Hollywood charlatans on Twitter, America might be in much better strategic shape now.

But he didn’t. We saw the heroes who got Khalid Sheik Mohammed to talk receive dishonorable mistreatment at the hands of politicians from both parties, with rino-John McCain and Dianne Fein-stein being two of the most prominent perpetrators. That dishonorable treatment included leaving those who answered the country’s call to do a difficult job to twist in the wind as the “Gitmo Bar” and ACLU turn America’s own legal system on those who defended it on behalf of members of al-Qaida.

We saw military readiness decline badly, and the War on Terror went badly off track. Bush’s failure to expand the United States military meant that China eventually felt emboldened to pursue a more aggressive posture in the South China Sea, while Russia launched aggression against Georgia and the Ukraine.

NATO declined as well, and also failed to meet obligations in terms of defense spending. Trump then got flak for rightly calling out Germany and Canada, among other countries.

But NATO’s failures were not the only thing that led many Americans to think that Europe was content to coast and let America fight the War on Terror alone. Some NATO allies investigated or even prosecuted American intelligence operatives for their actions in the War on Terror. NATO allies refused to fight alongside America in Iraq.

And in the meantime, especially under Obama, our troops had their hands tied behind their back with overly restrictive rules of engagement. As America prematurely pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the fight was turned over to Special Operations Command. We can’t help but wonder if recent controversies are partially due to the fact that these elite troops bear most of the burden of the fight against radical Islamic jihadists, making multiple deployments.

The fact is, talking with the Taliban after they harbored Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida leadership is not a good look. Then again, neither is sending American troops to fight and die when we have no clear plan for victory — much less the will to carry it out. The Taliban’s recent actions, though, show that the latter is the lesser of the two evils — and thankfully, President Trump seems to be acting accordingly.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65364?mailing_id=4521&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4521&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Credit for that progress goes in part to ongoing work on border barriers, albeit largely replacing old sections rather than constructing new ones. Credit also goes partly to Mexico and several Central American countries, which have at Trump’s behest made some changes in how asylum-seeking migrants are processed. More change is needed to deal humanely with the vast number of migrants. Many are indeed seeking refuge from terribly violent homes, but many more don’t actually meet any reasonable definition of asylum seeker. In any case, they are also overwhelming the system.

Meanwhile, speaking of asylum, some bad news on the border. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, an scumbag/liar-nObama judge ensconced in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, re-issued a nationwide injunction “preventing the Trump administration’s ban on asylum-seekers who travelled through a so-called safe third country before arriving in the U.S.,” reports National Review. Not only is Tigar grossly exceeding his own authority to “check” Trump, he’s giving the middle finger to a higher court. National Review adds that he “issued the ruling after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in August narrowed his previous nationwide injunction, allowing the Trump administration to implement the asylum-rule change in Texas and New Mexico but not in California or Arizona.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board is exactly correct in arguing, “Nationwide injunctions are supposed to be an extraordinary remedy, not an automatic resort for plaintiffs who dislike a policy. The Supreme Court needs to step in and define the limits of this increasingly willful judicial intervention.”

The elected branches of government are responsible for securing this nation. Congress has entirely abdicated that responsibility when it comes to immigration (and, frankly, a host of other issues) for transparently political reasons. That leaves President Trump to do what he can. Unfortunately, he’s fighting for secure borders and reasonable Rule of Law immigration policy not only against caravans of migrants seeking to cross the border illegally but against judges who seem hell-bent on asserting their own despotic rule.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65366?mailing_id=4521&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4521&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

The Wall Street Journal notes, “Fannie and Freddie don’t make loans but instead buy them from lenders and package them into securities that are sold to other investors. Figuring out how to refashion the companies remains the largest single piece of unfinished business from the financial crisis. The government assumed control of the firms in 2008 during the height of the crisis to prevent their failure, which officials’ feared would trigger a broader collapse in the housing market.”

As astute readers will recall, Democrats seeded the 2008 financial crisis with horrible mortgage-lending policies beginning in the 1990s. Trump aims to undo some of that government interference.

The Trump administration’s 50-part plan seeks “to level the playing field between the two government-sponsored enterprises, limit government-backing for the institutions for a fee and invite more private competition into the mortgage market,” reports The Hill. The plan to release Fannie and Freddie is a move in the right direction, but there is no guarantee that it will be implemented before 2020, as it would require legislative action from a divided Congress.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65327?mailing_id=4519&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4519&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

“When the British went to war exactly 80 years ago they swiftly lost the individual freedom to make fundamental choices over the way they lived. … And there was one other curtailment of individual choice that touched every home in the land: what people could eat.” —Daily Beast columnist Clive Irving

“The balance that we have to strike here, frankly, is about what government can and should do around creating incentives and then banning certain behaviors.” —Democrat presidential candidate lowlife-Kamala Harris, in response to a question about changing government dietary guidelines regarding consumption of red meat to address the impact of climate change

It is no secret that every Democrat candidate for president supports some version of government-run healthcare. It is also no secret that the vast majority of people on board with the idea view such healthcare in terms of having insurance that gives them better, and ostensibly cheaper, access to to doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers.

What those same people don’t see? Ultimately, government run healthcare isn’t about healthcare. It’s about the further accumulation of power. Power to determine who gets what — or who gets nothing at all, unless certain “conditions” are met.

“Patients with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of over 40 will not be referred for routine surgery unless they are able to reduce it to under that number over a nine-month period. … Patients with a BMI over 30 but under 40 will also be required to reduce that figure to under 30 or lose 10 per cent of their weight before they are considered for surgery. … Smokers [must] quit for eight weeks before they are referred for surgery. A breath test will be used to detect the levels of carbon monoxide in their blood.” —Independent UK, Oct. 18 — 2017

“The tragic reality is this planet simply can’t sustain billions of people consuming industrially produced animal agriculture because of environmental impact. It’s just not possible, as China, as Africa move toward consuming meat the same way America does because we just don’t have enough land.” —Democrat presidential candidate scumbag-Cory Booker

scumbag-Booker, like many of his fellow Democrats, support the Green New Deal. An analysis of that plan was done by the Food & Environment Reporting Network, which noted that one section of it called for “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.” That work included “supporting family farming,” “investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health,” and “building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.”

First, when do people begin to understand that universal healthcare and the Green New Deal are two sides of the same power-accumulating coin? Second, when does the same Democrat Party that told Americans they could keep their doctors, hospitals, and health insurance, substitute coercion for collaboration, aimed at farmers and other food producers who remain insufficiently “woke” regarding “suggestions” that ultimately become demands?

And who is still naive enough to believe access to healthcare won’t include additional dietary — or even exercise — requirements?

Moreover, availability is also part of the equation. Those who tout systems like the aforementioned NHS apparently glide over the reality that more than 20,000 cancer patients miss out on radiotherapy every year. Why? Because the agency doesn’t refer them for it, according to a report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Radiotherapy, which further noted that a shortage of radiographers exacerbated the problem. Moreover, the NHS’s Continuing Healthcare program sounds just like America’s VA. “At least 1,000 sick, elderly or disabled people die waiting for nursing care every year,” The Express reports.

What about Canada? “Unless you live in Canada and have the dubious pleasure of experiencing the one-tier system of finding a family doctor, wait times in hospitals, wait times for imagery exams, wait times to see specialists and wait times for treatment or surgery, you can’t really appreciate the true meaning of the word ‘affordable’ in Canada’s very affordable public health care,” reveals Canadian resident Valerie Sobel. “Canada’s single-payer public health care system, heavily funded by taxpayers, forced over one million patients to wait for necessary medical treatments last year. An all-time record in a country of only 36 million. The only thing Canadians are guaranteed is a spot on a waitlist.”

America has nearly 10 times that many people, and anyone who thinks bureaucracy — what universal healthcare is really all about — gets more efficient or more compassionate as the population increases is utterly delusional.

What’s the realistic alternative? “A Powell River, [British Columbia], man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) opted for a medically assisted death last Tuesday after years of struggling to fund 24-hour care that kept him close to his son,” the CBC website reported last month.

The man’s name was Sean Tagert. He was only 41 years old, and he had an 11-year-old son.

Why did he opt for medically assisted suicide that is legal in Canada? “Vancouver Coastal Health offered him 15.5 hours of home care under the Choice in Supports for Independent Living program but not the 24-hour care he needed,” CBC adds. “Tagert was later offered as much as 20 hours per day, which his doctor said was still not enough.”

Columnist John Ellis gets it exactly right. “A single-payer health care system will always sink to the lowest common denominator, removing choice,” he explains. “If death is more efficient for the system, then death it will be.”

But not before one is forced to abide certain requirements aimed at keeping the system more “efficient.” Today in Britain, it’s the obese and smokers who are targeted.

Tomorrow, in America? It isn’t hard to imagine the following scenario:

Mr. Smith, according to your government-provided pulsometer, data from which was automatically downloaded to the government’s healthcare evaluation website, you didn’t do the required amount of aerobic exercise this week. Until you get back on track, consider your healthcare coverage suspended.     ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65333?mailing_id=4519&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4519&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body