Want To Die? Vote Democrat


Well, one way or another.

You won’t get a choice, but not all forms of death come via bullets, decapitation, having a stick (or red-hot poker) rammed up your butt or explosions.  Those (ok, excepting the poker and stick) tend to be fast and (mostly) painless.

The really bad forms are slow and hurt like hell.  They come from things like Hepatitis C, for which there is now a cure and, if you are willing to fly to India, you can have it for about $900 (plus the cost of the airplane ride, passport, visa if you need one and a 90 day stay in a hotel.)  Those “pluses” sound expensive and they are, right up until you consider that the very same drug, made by the same company, costs $90,000 right here in America — and it’s illegal to fly the drug from India to here, so if you want it for the $900, you must go there.

It this was a singular instance it would be able to be written off as an anomaly.  But it’s not.  Scorpion anti-venom and similar drugs used for snakebites can cost $50,000 or more here in the United States for treatment, but are a literally $100 in Mexico, just a few miles south.  Again, if you get bit or stung I hope you can get to Mexico to buy them before you die because it’s a criminal offense to have someone fly them here to you.

Then there are things that almost-certainly won’t kill you — like toenail fungus.  That’s just nasty — but the drug used to treat it could cost you $11 — or more than $500.  What’s worse is that one bottle isn’t enough; oh no, you’re going to need about a dozen or so, meaning you’re out close to $10,000.  Oh, and the odds of a cure?  About one in six.  The money is gone whether you win or lose.


Last night Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and O’Malley “duked it out” for the Democrat nomination in a so-called “debate.”  None of them managed to explain how any of their policies would address any of this problem, nor that of Obamacare selling what amounts to worthless insurance policies that are only good for evading fines.  Yes, it is true (as the Obama administration says) that if you’re under the median income you can buy a policy for about $50 a month — after “subsidies.”  But if you’re of modest means you can’t afford to use it because the deductibles are typically in the $6,000 range and you probably don’t have $6,000!

For those of us who are not sick and don’t believe we’ll become sick it’s probably worth it to have what amounts to a catastrophic policy for $500 a year.  The problem is that’s exactly what it is, which is worthless to someone who actually needs ongoing medical treatment.

Clinton had exactly zero in strategy to offer against Daesh, except what Obama is doing right now plus a no-fly zone.  That’s nice when we’ve probably allowed anywhere from a thousand to ten thousand or more Daesh radicals into our country already and we know there have been thousands of Visas that have been revoked for terrorism concerns but we don’t know where any of those people are.  Sanders and O’Malley were no better and arguably worse; all three want to get rid of the vestiges of the Second Amendment.

Now about that cutting-head-off thing….. oh, that’s not politically correct so we’ll leave that one on the table.  Your head, that is.

None of these clowns wants to do a thing that’s positive about the cost of college. Oh sure, Clinton wants “debt-free” college and Sanders just wants to give it away, but none of them said a thing about the outrageous increase in administrative staff compared to professors (none of whom teach of course) over the last 30 years, nor the gilded football stadiums and similar edifices, all of which are expensive as hell to maintain.  The market would take of this immediately were student debt able to be discharged in bankruptcy like a credit card; nobody in their right mind would loan you a nickel unless they were convinced you’d find it better to pay than walk off, and that means you graduated and have something lose if you go bankrupt.  Ah, look at that, we could solve the problem by letting the market price risk like it’s supposed to!  Nope.

Now as for O’Malley all he’s done is grab guns.  Has he increased safety?  

Uh, no.

Shootings in Baltimore are up 82% in the last year alone while O’Malley has “clamped down” on guns in Maryland.

If that’s an “increase” in safety I think I’d like the opposite, thank you very little you pugnacious jackass — the only people who your “laws” prevented from getting guns are those who need them to stop the bad guys!

I’m sure you can trust that O’Malley’s government will be happy to send a body bag along in 20 minutes or so to collect your unarmed remains after the jackwad who doesn’t give a good damn about his “laws” shoots you.

Applying these policies nationally would be an utter disaster.  It would simply embolden both criminals and terrorists, which is exactly what we can expect if any of these fools winds up in office.

I hope we’re not that dumb, but it won’t shock me one bit if we are.

Guest post courtesy of Market Ticker.


  • 235northave

    its going to get worse as the day goes by, we better get ready and prepare because its not looking at all for the election next year

  • Libertycard

    OK But we already know that.

    What will Tea Party members do if we elect them. They better start standing FOR something and quit telling me what democrats are going to do. (Can you not see what message THAT is sending to every one?)

  • John Pastirchak

    With Iowa just around the corner, game time is fast approaching, so we need to get ready. Conservatives must being rising above the emotional fervor and focusing on nominating an “electable” Republican. Understandably, that’s a bitter pain to swallow for both the fiercely loyal Troops for Trump movement, and, though to a lesser extent, the Cruz crowd, since polls still show both trailing in head-to-head combat with Shrillary.

    Cruz still appears to lead in the run-up to February’s Iowa caucuses, but Iowa rarely produces the victor on Election Day. Nationally, Trump still commands a stunning lead among likely voters, but steady gains by his closest rivals, Cruz and Rubio, can’t be ignored; it could signal more thoughtful consideration candidates best equipped to beat the Democrat. His troubled history on Immigration aside, Rubio especially fits the profile of favorable “perceptions”– youth, confidence, good looks– which often inspire voter choices. Like it or not, today’s passions must bow to electability in ’16.

    Critical too is voter turnout, be it the primaries or the general election. Yes, voting– Conservatives, showing up en masse on Election Day and casting ballots for the Republican nominee, even if he or she falls a little short of sacred Right Wing criteria. In 2012, Barack Obama won the popular vote by just under 5-million votes, a figure painfully similar to the number of no-show registered Republicans staying home that year to protest the Romney nomination. Use your imagination even if, like me, you didn’t particularly like Mitt Romney.

    Still, some are threatening to stay home again if Trump isn’t nominated. Ominously, a Trump-less ticket would inspire one “patriot” (another forum) not to vote, period, even if it means risking the election of “Hildabeast.” According to that writer’s logic, losing in 2016 would be a small price to pay for, 1) triggering the destruction of the GOP, and, 2) the advancement of a new phantom party steeped in Conservative values. This of course is bunk based on a pipe dream. As sober Patriots know, losing next year’s presidential race to a Democrat would more likely deliver the knockout punch to history’s only truly successful, if now floundering Constitutional Republic.

    Victory next year means making good decisions now. It all starts in Iowa in February.